25 November 2007 From Meg Lee Chin
I have recently become concerned that members are now sacrificing jobs, relationships, homes and security in the name of 911 Truth. It is for this reason I feel duty bound to raise some questions as I realise the stakes are getting higher. The game is getting serious and people’s lives are at stake. I propose a new policy of greater disclosure in this London 911 Truth Group. The antidote to infiltrators is not more secrecy, but more honesty and openness.

So,  regarding Annie’s report on the general consensus of European activists preferring Amsterdam to Brussels for the location of the annual conference:

I need to point out that this report of a “general consensus” seems a bit vague to base a proper democratic decision upon.  

If so, shouldn’t these Europeans activists – who are swaying the vote, be included in this round-robin discussion?

I will begin in a spirit of openness and honesty,  by stating that I have never felt comfortable with what appears to be a centralised control of power. The facts being:

Nearly every significant person in the entire UK 911 Truth Movement has passed through one central hub in Highgate at one time or another – The home of Belinda, Annie and David (previously). And now there is a lot of U.S. traffic passing through too. This raises a red flag for me. Not to point fingers, but NO-ONE should be above suspicion. The events don’t really make money, yet there are always funds when it comes to wooing significant major players on the 911 scene. Forgive my suspicions, but it all looks pretty bad on paper.  

So, I don’t think it unfair that I ask:

Who are these all these European activists who want to meet in Amsterdam?

Am I correct in my understanding that Annie’s new boyfriend heads the Amsterdam group? If so, wouldn’t there be a bias there? Is this more control in the hands of the Highgate hub?

Wouldn’t another city be a bit more neutral?

For what it’s worth:  

Berlin is the cheapest in terms of flights, accommodation and food.

Last time I went, the flight cost me £22 return on Ryanair.  

Meg Lee Chin

25 November 2007 From Ian Neal
OH FFS

This is why I find email group discussions so troublesome. You don’t
know who is on the list and who the ‘group’ imagines they are. In terms
of money and finance and a wider European gathering we are talking about
the Campaign (and not the London group or some randomly selected group
of email addresses). Meg if you want to a crusade to reform the London
group the person to address is Toseef. You are aware he is the London
group co-ordinator. One of the reasons the London group asked Toseef to
co-ordinate things is the need to make a clearer separation between
London and national events.

The concensus that Annie speaks of I presume is the concensus of the
campaign committee comprising of local group representatives and amongst
the European contacts Annie has made during the willy tour. Yes the
dutch group is headed by Annie’s boyfriend, as long as everyone is aware
of this connection so what?

In terms of openness and disclosure what is it you want to know Meg.
Your paranoia and insinuations are beginning to fuck me off. The
campaign is open both in terms of who makes decisions (currently me,
annie and justin), who we are accountable to (the campaign committee)
and what those decisions have been. The fact that you feel there is a
lack of openness is probably a reflection that you are not on that
committee.

Yes recent tour events (Cynthia, Webster) have not made money and
Belinda (from her own personal savings if you must know) has been
subsidising things along with modest contributions from me and others. I
would imagine people would have far more concerns if we were raking it
in and no one knew what was happeneing to money. The last agm accounts
were presented and they were in line with what I know to have been. If
there is something specific you want to know feel free to ask.

You are right of course that no one is above suspicion but equally
people should not be subject to suspicion purely because they are exMI5
or because others are of a paranoid bent.

Oh and if anyone is sacreficing jobs, relationships, etc, on the back of
9/11 then this is fine but it is a personal decision and you are all
responsible for your own lives.

25 November 2007 From Stefan Souppouris
Meg,

S

25 November 2007 From Meg Lee Chin
Yes, you’re right Ian. I am probably overly paranoid and
suspicious.Understandably, you probably have a lot more trust in the
Highgate Hub because you know them. But I don’t and that is not down
to lack of effort. I don’t know the core group personally in the way
you do. From where I am sitting, all I have is the following
information:

David Shayler spent only 7 weeks of a 6 month sentence in an open
prison after voluntarily turning himself in to UK authorities.
There have been no new revelations since then.
He is now discreditng the movement as Messiah
Annie’s job was to infiltrate left wing groups – one of them SWP
She always has a go at STW in her speeches as can be seen on Youtube -
this worries me as I worry about alienating the left.
Belinda’s generosity in financial support of both the Shaylers and the
movement along with the Highate House which seems custom designed for
activists, seems too good to be true.

I can see why you’d be fucked off with me. I can’t blame you. But me,
I am more concerned with finding out the truth than being popular.

But why all the animosity? Questions need to be raised.

911Truth is an idea. Not a piece of real estate. No one person OWNS the truth.

25 November Paul Carline
Concerned about alienating ‘the Left’? Not me .. They don’t deserve our
concern. They’re blinded by their own anachronistic ‘class war’ ideology and
by their arrogance – as if they possessed the truth and we were a minor
irritant. They are utterly deluded in believing that an imminent demise of
capitalism is going to place political power in their laps.

We should be angry with them for placing ideology and the pursuit of power
before truth – and for betraying Muslims with their acceptance of the
preposterous official version. My suggestion (at a conference in Edinburgh)
that Stop the War (heavily dominated by old Lefties) was at the very least
missing a trick in not getting on board the 911 truth train was dismissed by
the conceited Lyndsey German with the words: “We don’t need 9/11″.

The Left might not need it – but Muslims certainly do. Yet the Left pretends
that it cares about Muslim Britain. I have nothing but contempt for them and
their stupid ideology.

We do, however, need to be careful not to alienate the millions of ‘good
people’ of the kind who turned up in Edinburgh in their hundreds of
thousands to march for an end to global poverty – only to see Blair’s
false-flag terrorist event in London undermine the whole campaign. ‘Middle
England’ needs to be won over with calm reason; it would certainly be
alienated if it saw us identified with the radical Left.

Paul

25 November 2007 From Ian Neal
Very good points paul

We need to craft a message which cuts across the traditional party
politic/class divides. That is ‘their’ game.

The basic message of 9/11 can be boiled down to corruption and lies
infest the whole bloody system politics, media, business, you name it.
Not just in this country but around the world. We’re being duped big
time. No where is this denial greater than amongst than amongst so many
on the left.

Half the problem and an explanation of why many (but not all) on the
left/green resist 9/11 truth is because the day to day accepted reality
of war, poverty and environmental destruction already exposes lies and
corruption at the heart of the system without needing conspiracy
theories. We need to show how ‘conspiracy theories’ actually help expose
the wickedness and help them achieve their goals, which after all are
ones that most people sign upto: ie protection of the environment,
justice/a fair deal for the poor and peace.

BW

Ian

26 November From Meg Lee Chin
From Annie: “Hypothetically, anyone who repeatedly questions the motivation
of others /could/ also be called into question, potentially as someone
trying to stir up distrust and “divide and conquer”.

This is a fair point from Annie and precisely the reason why I became
suspicious in the first place. I saw what looked to me like the repeated
demonising and unfounded suspicions of some individuals and groups and it
raised questions for me. Instead of a growing group, I watched while one by
one people were eliminated from lists, etc. You have to practically fight or
beg if you want to stay on a list around here! I hear this all the time. It
looks to me like all the dividing and conquering has already been done. The
Highgate Hub makes possible a centralised control of power. Like it or not,
this is reality. Every major significant player in the entire 911 Truth
Movement has or will at one time pass through those doors.

As for fear and distrust. I believe it was already there and not just with
me. I think I may be one of the first to verbalize it. I figured it was time
to bring it out in the open. I don’t believe I am stirring. I believe I am
bringing to light what already existed. This suspicion is not restricted to
the confines of this group. This group has a reputation for being
infiltrated. Just last night at the Loose Change After Party, one of the
Brixton performers talked about the “Highgate House” and 911 Truth being run
by MI5! I hear this a LOT nowadays.

I don’t believe having doubts implies you are trying to “divide and conquer
911 Truth”. Not everybody with a distrust of the leadership is out to
destroy 911 Truth. I was surprised by a program on telly which showed the
number of people in Britain who do believe 911 was an inside job! Where are
these people? Why aren’t they at the meetings?Being critical and having
suspicions of the group does not make one against 911 Truth. Just as being
critical and suspicious of government doesn’t make one unpatriotic.

In a free society you MUST question leadership. It is called “checks and
balances”. People should not be afraid to speak up.

Meg Lee Chin

26 November 2007 From Alan Murray
I’ve not heard of any report, also the meeting that took placeabout a
month ago at Highgate, do we get to see what was brought up and
decided?

This is also important. If we are to grow as a creative movement then
we do need to be more open.

Good day saturday and well done to all involved with the premiere and
after party.

Alan

26 November 2007 From Ian Neal
Sigh, excuse my french but you are talking shite and wasting our time
Meg

There is no dark conspiracy to keep certain people out of the loop.
Sure, the internal communication could be better, but I fail to see any
evidence that this poor communication is promoted by the the ‘highgate
house’ or MI5. Since assuming co-chairmanship of the campaign, we have
formalised the membership of the committee to take in representatives of
all known local groups and introduced a private forum where anyone who
is known and using their proper name is welcome to discuss the campaign.

Sadly some people struggled to log-on (a result of a security password
safeguard which is now removed), but the main reason it has not taken
off is because people have choosen not to use it (at least not so far
and that it is currently down: again something unrelated to ‘highgate
house’). In addition to this we have the public forum and any number of
email lists and bits of cyber space where campaigners can communicate so
I hardly see that anyone is being frozen out. Indeed the co-chairs and
the campaign is open to practical offers of help and support. We would
welcome being approached by a group of people who for example could run
a professional press office for the campaign just so long as it is
professional and not a muppet operation and as a result of the last
national meeting hopefully this will begin to take shape.

We also welcome people taking their own initiative and doing their own
thing. After all no one needs the committee’s approval to do anything.
So I will say what I said to Kenyon when he made similar noises around
the time of the Cynthia tour. If you think you can do better be my
guest, either by doing your own thang or putting yourself forward to be
elected by the committee at the next agm or by proposing practical
solutions. Indeed wasn’t this the advise to you when you offered your
webservices. Were you not working with Mike Meaney on creating a web
platform for campaigners? Now I don’t know all the in and outs of why it
has come to nothing so far but I do know it had everything to do with
you and nothing to do MI5′s hidden hand.

But let’s cut to the chase. Who is doing the demonsiing and who are they
demonising? Who are these people who say the campaign has a reputation
as being infiltrated by MI5? Presumably these people have names do they
and some evidence to back up their ‘suspicions’? Well let them speak for
themselves. In addition to you, I know of the concerns of Kenyon and
Moeen (and to a lesser extent malcontents such as Karl (aka stelios) and
Dave Sherlock) but given their complaints are similarly vague,
evidence-free and smacking of sour grapes, I give them little credence.
Anyone else? Anyone on this list? Anyone on the committee? Anyone who
might actually know what they are talking about?

Further more what is the supposed agenda of the “Highgate House” and
MI5? Presumably Justin and I are outside this cell or are we part of it
as well? In what direction have MI5 been steering us towards? What
decisions might have made differently were it not for MI5′s hidden hand?

So like I say feel free to continue to speak your truth, just don’t
expect me to give your repetition of vague unattributed bar-room gossip
any more time.

Ian

26 November 2007 From Meg Lee Chin
The message I am getting from the tone of your letter Ian, is that it is not
ok to raise difficult questions. The last time I experienced this kind of
hostility was when I said I suspected the official story was incorrect in
front of about 30 people, about a month after September 11, 2001 in the USA.
I was branded a traitor for trying to disrupt the very important task at
hand which was the US/UK invasion of Afghanistan. This task was so important
that there was no time for dissent, criticisms or suspicions of any kind. To
do so, would be unpatriotic.

It looks like today I have become one of the official dissenters. I suppose
I could be branded a terrorist of sorts. After all it was suicidal for me to
write such a volatile and explosive letter. I was unable to fit into the
group. You could say it is all down to a severe personality flaw on my part.
George Bush would also claim his dissenters have no legitimate complaints
and are jealous, crazy, lazy, etc.

The irony is, there is all this talk about the NWO, the elite, the secret
society, George Bush, the Neo-cons etc. And no one has noticed the obvious
parallels. The group is not flat, nor is it inclusive. There is a lot of
secrecy. There are a privileged few. There is an elite. They do sometimes
meet in secret. There is centralised control. The workers are kept too busy
to think. There is no time for dissent. The task at hand is all important.

When you do manage to change the power structure of the world, what are you
going to replace it with?

Meg Lee Chin

26 November 2007 From Ian Neal
Firstly apologies to Karl. It was unfair of me to associate Karl with
the concerns Meg raises. Sorry.

The problem is Meg you haven’t actually raised any ‘difficult
questions’, answered my questions, provided any evidence for your
suspicions or proposed suggestions for a better way to run things. Until
you do, you are just wasting bandwidth and my time.

You say the campaign has a reputation of being MI5 run but don’t say who
is promoting this reputation and on what grounds they base their
suspicions.

Oh and I have no illusions of grandeur that it will be my role to tell
the people of the world what we should replace current world power
structures with. However I do have thoughts on this question. First and
foremost, the people of the world need to stop looking for gurus and
leaders to tell them the answers and work it out for themselves. The
ultimate truth is infinite love, everything else being an illusion. But
in the day to day world, power structures need to hold those with
power/responsibility accountable. Perhaps you want to propose an
alternative constitution and set of structures to hold the campaign
accountable.

Ian

26 November 2007 From Rory Winter
I quite agree with you Ian. And that is why I am trying to focus the
attention of this Mailing List to issues concerning the British Secret
State and the developments from it. As British citizens this should be
very much what concerns us first and foremost for if we can deal
successfully with these problems here we would have gone a very long way
in addressing the much wider problems of NWO, Illuminati (whoever they
are) and so on.

On the other, hand to ignore what’s going on on our very doorsteps and
to lose ourselves in the vastness of global issues is, in effect, a
cop-out. The watchword must remain: act local, think global.

26 November 2007 From Kenyon Gibson
To all,
 
I have just read this thread, though it may be only middle bits, not sure if I got to the start of it.
 
Whilst I do not agree MI5 is infiltrating, I might agree with David Shayler on one of his points and say the left is capable of
destroying itself without outside help.
Part of this self destruction is that it does not listen.
Many voices were warning about Shayler, hologram nonsense, anti-Semitism, etc., and were ignored by Highgate House. Larry O’Hara is now having the last laugh,
and I do not quote him out of fondess – there was the time I defended Shayler and crew against him at the Anarchists’ Bookfair. BTW, that is in Issue 7 of his
From the Borderland, Nick Kollerstrom has a copy. He goes so far as to call the Shayler/Machon supporters fools, and it is hard to dispute his warning.
Highgate House disseminates strange tales of ‘Jewish mitochondrial DNA’ in a book called 9/11: The Ulimate Truth. The simple truth is this is nonsense and none of you have the guts
to tell Belinda to put it away; she runs soughshod over things, has gone so far as to show up at my house on my birthday and celebrate Shayler’s when it wasn’t even Shayler’s!
Learn some manners.
More simple truth is that the episode at the LSE only alienated a very senior journalist who took the group to task on his website, which is one quoted in the
Guardian and listed as a ‘blogger for Labour’.
As to dealing with the press we went from talking face to face with journalists and MPs (Jeremy Corbyn e.g.) to being ridiculed in the New Statesman - or rather, HH
was. My own efforts to get letters into the New Int were belittled by the HH crowd - whilst the longer serving went and took my advice - one or two of whom actually
got a letter in!
HH may not be MI5, but it has sent out false addresses of meetings, held secret meetings at which David Shayler was made chairman (according to him, but to be objective
he was stoned at the time so maybe this was just him speaking); HH refused to send a get well card to Litvinenko – and he would have been a great ally – he wrote the book
on false flag terror in Russia. 
We need to network and gain support in the press. Highgate House needs to humble itself and work with those of us who came along before them, and the angry young men
who prop up HH, dubbed the ‘brownshirts of the 9/11 movement ‘ need to work with us, not just with two single women who do not work for a living – this again is
a simple truth about HH.  
 
Otherwise, as Ian pointed out, we may just check out of the house and do our own thing. There are many who are quite capable and whom HH has not worked with -
over the years we have had Ian Henshall, Simon Aaronowitz and others work with the team successfully – they are proven players who did not cause such dissent.
No one was getting this angry or getting arrested.
 
Again, I do not know what Meg is saying originally here so accept this as independent analysis
from someone who was in intel and did write a book on 9/11. Or, as some seem to imply,
you can belive that I am writing as directed by a secret lizard cabal out to destroy the
movement by criticising it!
 
Kenyon

27 November 2007 From Andrew Baker
Kenyon,

Hi Meg

So, Meg, how about being “open and honest” about the EVIDENCE that Belinda and I are MI5 babysitters?  Care to share it with us?  Or is it easier just to continue making unsubstantiated allegations?

 

Strangely enough, I was trying not to involve boring everyone with this ongoing discussion, which is why I replied to your last email on a smaller list – Belinda, whom you have also accused of being a “MI5 babysitter”, and the other 2 co-chairs of the campaign who should be kept in the loop.    And I wasn’t expressing anger, merely asking for EVIDENCE that the British campaign is “being run by MI5″.  However, as you’ve chosen to use a vast circular email list yet again, I feel I should reply to your public accusations in public.  But that’s it.  I’m not going to waste everyone’s time with further emailing on this subject.  My response is in italics, embedded in your accusations below.

Regards

Annie

From: Meg Lee Chin
Sent: 26 November 2007
Subject: Response to Annie  

Hi Annie,

 

In response to your email. I can understand your anger.  But people are devoting their lives to this movement. Yes, we all are.  You must realise you hold a lot of power. Why shouldn’t your motives be questioned?  I am not a politician, scholar, scientist, lawyer  or otherwise expert. Why is my gut instinct any less valid than the opinions of the experts? After all, it was my gut instinct which told me on September 11, 2001 that the official story was incorrect.

 

You on the other hand, despite your training and inside information, didn’t see 911 was an inside job till a full 4 years later. In 2005 you finally joined and immediately rose to prominence in the 911 Truth Movement.  So maybe gut feeling can sometimes  have the edge over the secret knowledge of the privileged few.  My gut instinct tells me that you, Belinda and David are good people. It also tells me that you are human and vulnerable to weaknesses stemming from power and corruption. Why shouldn’t I voice my concerns?  

 

Like 911,  I do believe there is enough evidence to warrant a raising of concern regarding your present concentration of power in the movement:  We have a national committee,  which I am on, which is accountable to the campaign.  We have 3 co-chairs, 3 vice-chairs, a treasurer and a secretary, as well as regional group representatives.  Does this constitute a “concentration of power”?

 

In your book of 2005 “Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers, you referred to 911 being the work of 19 Muslim Fundamentalists hijackers.  You were an elite member of the secret services, yet you didn’t know what many ordinary people knew with their gut instinct?   Your official line is that you were distracted by David’s court case – but it was it a bit difficult to ignore 911. You were an intelligence officer, yet you publicly supported the official story till 2005.  Why wouldn’t this seem unusual? Not just the court case, which was prolonged and traumatic, but also the media lynching, Dave’s imprisonment, writing the book in 2003, trying to get it cleared, its suppression, and scrabbling around trying to survive financially.  Plus my deeply schizophrenic brother who lived with us for a year.  Yes, with our background we should have been quicker off the mark, but life has a nasty way of intruding.

 

You protest at being lumped in with David Shayler (Yes, now – I have fundamentally disagreed with his campaigning approach for well over a year), yet it was this association which afforded you a certain celebrity status (This association may have afforded a certain notoriety, but has killed any chance of a proper career for me – not that I would want it now as I feel this is too big an issue to ignore.  But don’t pretend the whislteblowing has been a benefit to me) and thus enabling you to rise quickly to prominence in the 911 Movement. (If I have achieved any “prominence” whatsoever, it’s more likely down to the fact I’ve spent the last two years flogging around the country on speaking tours and helping new groups.  I did not just swan into the movement and say “hey, I’m a former spy, therefore I’m important”!)  You spoke of him constantly in interviews. You are still in contact and seen with him, so I don’t think the association is unfair. (I haven’t spoken to Dave for months, but he turned up unexpectedly at the LC3 premiere.  Do you think I should have ignored him?  I continue to talk about the whistleblowing years because I think false flag terrorism adds to the message around 911). The worry for me is, are you playing “Good Cop/Bad Cop?” Will there be another Messiah to discredit other people’s works? Why shouldn’t there be cause for worry?

 

David broke the official secrets act in 1997.  Can I just clarify – do you think this is a bad thing for him to have done?  He exposed illegality – ie not “official” secrets per se.

He went into exile during which time he threatened to reveal more secrets.  We fled because we feared being held apart on remand for up to two years.

A year later, he voluntarily surrendered to the UK authorities.  Please check your facts.  We spent three years in France, and Dave spent 4 months in prison in Paris when the British government failed to extradite him.

He then spent only 7 weeks of a 6 month sentence in an open prison.  1) Because I did a very passionate mitigation plea – he was facing 6 years.  2) Because, after he’d gone to prison, a journalist told us that sentences under four years were transmutable to 1/3 in prison, 1/3 tagged and 1/3 on probation.  We had to fight for this – we were not told officially.

Neither you nor he has volunteered any new information.  Since when?  Everything we wanted to say IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST about our MI5 years is in the book. 

He is now discrediting the 911 movement as Messiah.  Dave still thinks he’s helping the movement by doing what he’s doing.  However misguided that view is, he appears to be genuine.

Beyond what can be read through books and the internet, neither you nor Dave have contributed any new information to the movement. (Yeah, apart from adding credence to the notion that false flag terrorism is an historic reality).  This seems strange to me, as I would’ve thought that as intelligence officers investigating Lockerbie and the like, you would have the edge on exposing more information. Surely you must have superior investigative skills to young kids and college professors?  I have always seen my role as a networker and campaigner – not a researcher.  We all have different roles. 

Your job was to infiltrate and spy on left wing groups! For my first posting – during which time I largely shut down the study of the group as they weren’t a real threat to national security.  For the remaining 4 years I worked in counter-terrorism.  So were you lying to those groups then, but telling the truth now?  I do wish you’d stop regurgitating “Notes from the Borderland”.  Dave and I were intelligence officers.  That means we sat behind a desk and ran operations, not infiltrated groups.  That’s what agents did.  I’ve explained this distinction to O’Hara many times, but he chooses to ignore it.  Agent identities were kept apart from the main records, and I didn’t have access to them.

 

Here are some of the anomalies I have witnessed in the movement:

 

There are lots of events with prominent players of the 911 Truth Movement – whom you have privy access to and thus a degree of control over – but the events are never well attended – don’t make any money.  The events are usually very well attended, primarily because of all the hard work of the regional organisers and at least (most of the time) cover the costs.  The three Rodriguez tours which I organised have engendered 15 new groups in the UK.  Plus, he had blanket media coverage locally.

There is a forum, where opinions get censored.  And?  What’s that got to do with me?  I’ve never been a moderator, and I barely post on the forum  now.

There is a lot of social activity taking place at the Highgate House with access only to the privileged few – by invitation only.  How does your home work?  I presume you generally work on a priciple of inviting people around for dinner/drinks?  Or do you just leave your front door open?  Plus, it’s hardly the “privileged few”  People, including you, flow through this house like water.

The group is no larger than it was 2 years ago, but the networking and access to prominent figures grows.  No, look at the forum stats.  When I joined in February 2006 there were under 300 people.  Now there are over 3000.  In February 2006 there were 5 functioning groups in the UK.  Now there are over 30.  But, I agree, we should do better.

There is now a growing alliance with the Amsterdam group headed by your boyfriend – more centralised control .  Activists across Europe are keen to form a more coherent European-wide strategy.  I deal with people whom I met during the Rodriguez tour during the summer in France, Germany and, yes, Holland.  Other people are in contact with other countries.  It’s all done on an ad hoc basis – hardly grounds for accusations of  centralised control.

 

The figures don’t add up. I know that Belinda supports both you and David financially, despite David now discrediting the movement. She also funds the majority of the events with prominent 911 players. I still don’t understand why with all these man hours and promotion, none of the events ever make money. If anything, aside from the glamorous guests bought and paid for, the movement  appears to be shrinking.  See above. The movement has gown exponentially over the last 2 years, both in numbers of groups, numbers of people on the forum, and the amount of media coverage we’ve achieved – although that’s not as good as it could be with the national MSM.  To say that it is shrinking is not just wrong, it’s insulting to all the amazing people across the country who put so much time, effort and money into spreading the word about 911.

 

So there you have it . This is why I am suspicious. You have many who trust you completely, so it shouldn’t be a problem for you that I don’t buy it. I’m happy just to have aired my suspicions and gotten them off my chest.

 

Meg Lee Chin

 

28 November 2007 From Kenyon Gibson
Andy,
 
Was that anti-Semitic? You bet I did. But I, part Jew, am not anti-Semitic, no more that a cop arresting
an Aryan for a crime is anti-Aryan.
That Jewish DNA BS is BS – I spoke facts. Facts are not anti anything.
 
BTW, when are you going to write in a letter to NEW INT?
The time you wasted on this email could have been spent on a letter, and BTW Elias Davidson just
sent in a very good one. He is not, BTW, accusing me of being anti-Semitic for my question.

I am anti-timewaster though, pass that around and use it against me if you will.
 
Kenyon