Professor David Miller and Neocon Europe – Part 1

This is a guest post by the American Neocon. It is part 1 of a 2 part article.

********************

David Miller

Professor David Miller

So, you will remember that a few months ago we featured one of the main writers of NeoCon Europe, Idrees Ahmed, on this blog. Today we look at one of Ahmed’s other friends.

Neocon Europe is the brainchild of Professor David Miller at Strathclyde University. Long before he created Neocon Europe, Miller was also behind other initiatives such as Spin Watch and Spin Profiles. The former claims to monitor:

the role of public relations and spin in contemporary society.

The website publishes and peddles a series of kooky far-left conspiracies. It hosts, for example, Idrees Ahmad’s utterly insane conspiracy theory that the Darfur crisis is being perpetrated by a powerful Jewish lobby, which bizarrely includes the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. He says:

Ned Goldstein has suggested in his investigation of the Zionist interests behind the [the Save Darfur Coalition] that Darfur is being deployed as a strategic distraction from Israeli crimes against the Palestinians… the real interest of [the Save Darfur Coalition] is to perpetuate the conflict so as to continue using the image of the Arab as the perpetrator to distract from the regional reality of the Arab as the victim.

But if you thought that was bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Until recently, Neocon Europe promoted the works of Kevin MacDonald on its website as objective analysis of so-called ‘Jewish influence’. MacDonald is a notorious anti-Semite, best known for his trilogy on Judaism: A People That Shall Dwell Alone (1994); Separation and Its Discontents (1998); and The Culture of Critique (1998). Essentially, MacDonald proposes that Judaism is a ‘group evolutionary strategy’ allowing Jews to ‘outdo’ others for resources.

MacDonald even appeared as a witness for the disgraced pseudo-historian, David Irving, in his libel battle with Deborah Lipstadt. MacDonald told the court:

…the attacks made on David Irving by Deborah Lipstadt and Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League should be viewed in the long-term context of Jewish-gentile interactions. As indicated by the summaries of my books, my training as an evolutionist as well as the evidence compiled by historians leads me to conceptualize Judaism as self-interested groups whose interests often conflict with segments of the gentile community.

[...]

[Irving’s] work is required reading for serious students of the Third Reich and World War II.

You can tell a lot about a man from the company he keeps. Here’s what the Anti-Defamation League has to say about MacDonald:

Kevin MacDonald’s arguments about Jews and Judaism — originally expressed in four books he published between 1994 and 2004 — mimic those made by anti-Semites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. MacDonald argues that Judaism is a particularly successful “group evolutionary strategy” that allows Jews to benefit at the expense of non-Jews, and that anti-Semitism is a “rational” non-Jewish response to counteract Jewish successes. MacDonald believes that Jews in contemporary times have fostered and supported multiculturalism, Zionism, and neo-conservatism to benefit Jews at the expense of non-Jews.

[...]

MacDonald thinks Jews are characterized by four “background traits”: elevated intelligence, hyperethnocentrism, aggressiveness, and psychological intensity which, when combined, make Jews a “formidable” and “effective” group, capable of dominating other groups. MacDonald sees Jewish intelligence, in particular (which he attributes to alleged “eugenics-style” breeding practices among Jews), as responsible for Jews’ purported ability to transform non-Jewish society for their own benefit. This intelligence is biological, MacDonald claims, and confers, at least upon Ashkenazi Jews, “the highest average intelligence of any human group.” He also believes it grants Jews a “tendency” to amass wealth, a further source of collective Jewish power.

In addition, the Anti-Defamation League also reports:

Kevin MacDonald maintains ties to racist organizations, writes articles for racist publications, has published with racist publishing houses, and has appeared in an anti-immigrant movie and on the cable television and radio shows of well-known anti-Semites.

Yet, NeoCon Europe still decided to present MacDonald’s views on their website as an objective commentary on Irving Kristol’s ‘The Neoconservative Persuasion’. They tell us that MacDonald:

…argues that neoconservatism is indeed a Jewish intellectual and political movement; stating that the ethnocentrism of the neocons enabled them to create ‘highly organized, cohesive, and effective ethnic networks’. It explores these networks in the academic world, in the elite media and think tanks, and at the highest levels of government. It also notes that in persuance of their persuasion they have purged more traditional conservatives from their positions of power and influence, to reorientate US foreign policy in the direction of hegemony and empire.

NeoCon Europe recently pulled the article, but the screenshots below show that it was hosted on their website:

MacDonald hosted on NConEu Screengrab 1

MacDonald hosted on NConEu Screengrab 2

We don’t know who wrote that ‘wiki’ entry on NeoCon Europe but we do know that David Miller was the one who deleted it, because the deletion log tells us. Miller might argue that he didn’t realise who MacDonald was and that he is just a bad researcher, rehashing any argument that comes his way. That might be so. But what is so amazing is that NeoCon Europe did not just republish MacDonald’s ‘analysis’ but also his racist list of ‘characteristics of Jewish intellectual movements’:

  • A deep concern with furthering specific Jewish interests, such as helping Israel or promoting immigration.
  • Issues are framed in a rhetoric of universalism rather than Jewish particularism.
  • Issues are framed in moral terms, and an attitude of moral superiority pervades the movement.
  • Centered around charismatic leaders (Boas, Trotsky, Freud).
  • Jews form a cohesive, mutually reinforcing core.
  • Non-Jews appear in highly visible roles, often as spokespersons for the movement.
  • A pronounced ingroup/outgroup atmosphere within the movement—dissenters are portrayed as the personification of evil and are expunged from the movement.
  • The movement is irrational in the sense that it is fundamentally concerned with using available intellectual resources to advance a political cause.
  • The movement is associated with the most prestigious academic institutions in the society.
  • Access to prestigious and mainstream media sources, partly as a result of Jewish influence on the media.
  • Active involvement of the wider Jewish community in supporting the movement.

Isn’t it amazing that no alarm bells went off at this stage? A list of racially based characteristics? Seriously, didn’t that prompt anyone to think ‘hmm, maybe I should check out who this MacDonald character is?’ Clearly not.

Instead, after reproducing the list, Neocon Europe tells us:

For MacDonald Neoconservatism, although not simply a term for ex-liberals or leftists, as a movement derives from the long association of Jews with the left and a loss of influence in the Democratic Party because of the fall of the Soviet Union.

And what article could pass on Neocon Europe without some reference to ‘the lobby’?

For MacDonald, neoconservatism is a semicovert branch of the “massive and highly effective pro-Israel lobby”, which includes organizations like the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).

That’s the kind of glowing analysis we’ve seen before.

Tune in tomorrow for Part 2!

This entry was posted in Your View. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

49 Comments

  1. Mikey
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 11:40 AM | Permalink

    Thank you very much for this article which I found most interesting. What I would still like to know is the answer to the following: Does Strathclyde University approve of this “project” by one of its own professors and is, in anyway, public money being used for this for example paid hours of time spent?

  2. Private R
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

    Excellent piece!

  3. Jimmy
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 12:07 PM | Permalink

    Serious questions must now be asked by Strathclyde University’s board as to why they continue to employ this paranoid Jew-hater who is obviously inculcating Strathclyde students with his bigoted conspiracy theories. I notice Miller employs a student / former student of his called Tom Mills …. would you send your child to Strathclyde University knowing that your daughter or son will be put in the hands of a posionous fruitcake like this?

  4. Abdullah Schweitzer
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 12:19 PM | Permalink

    What is the address I can use to make a complaint to Strathclyde Uni?

  5. Posted December 1, 2009 at 12:54 PM | Permalink

    I hope you don’t mind me copying what I wrote on Harry’s Place:

    Having been on the receiving end of some serious and deliberate defamation by Miller, I think a really intense spotlight should be shone onto his activities.

    I also found it strange that Miller was appearing on a show on Radio 5 Live recently, hosted by Donal MacIntyre. The subject was an investigation by the respected journalist Tom Mangold into the bizarre activities of Glen Jenvey.

    Nigel West was one of the two “expert” guests. Nigel West is the former Tory MP Rupert Allason who in 2001 was described by a judge as “one of the most dishonest witnesses I have ever seen”.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/rupert-allason-a-reputation-in-tatters-632081.html

    And bizarrely Miller was there, claiming to be a “terrorism expert”, when on issues of Islamic terrorism he is no such thing.

    And it is no wonder that Miller had the views of an anti-Semite on his site.

    On Spinwatch, which is registered* to Miller’s home in South Brent in Devon, there is a whole page dedicated to the “Israel Lobby”:
    http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Category:Israel_Lobby

    I wonder if Peter Oborne consulted Miller’s site for his research on his recent Channel Four programme.

    The thing with Miller is that he claims to be an expert on spin and PR and yet his sites are nothing other than propaganda.

    He lists people like Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens:
    http://www.neoconeurope.eu/Alexander_Meleagrou-Hitchens

    and there is no objective discussion of his ideas. But there is a subheading clearly titled “Attacking Islam”, giving in no uncertain terms the impression that Hitchens is against Islam – when he is only against Islamism.

    I doubt that Miller has even bothered to write this crap. He has a little Tintin-like gopher called Tom Griffin who writes and amends most of the pages.

    Patrick Poole, who is based in Ohio, even has an entry on Neocon Europe:
    http://www.neoconeurope.eu/Patrick_Poole

    despite not being a European.

    David Miller is a cheap propagandist who claims to dissect the spin of others, when all he does is subvert facts to come out with ridiculous results. An example from 2007:

    “The statistical invisibility of Islamist ‘terrorism’ in Europe
    Blogs – David Miller – Unspun

    New figures from Europol, the European police agency, reveal that Islamist terror attacks in Europe constituted 0.2% or all ‘terrorism’ throughout the continent in 2006.* Unsurprisingly, there has been little in the media about this interesting figure in the month since it was published.

    In their first report of this nature – European Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2007 – Europol reports that across the EU there were 498 terrorist attacks in 2006. These include:

    424 ‘ethno-nationalist and separatist’ (mostly in France and Spain)

    55 ‘left-wing and anarchist’ (mainly Greece , Italy, Spain and Germany)

    1 failed Islamist terrorist attack (in Germany, plus two more attempts allegedly foiled in Denmark and the UK)
    1 right-wing terrorist attack (in Poland)

    He goes on to suggest in this odd piece that: “Indeed one of the two alleged ‘foiled’ attacks in the figures is the much heralded transatlantic bomb plot in the UK which has certainly adversely affected millions of air passengers. However, it does appear that this plot existed much more in the minds of the security establishment than in reality.”

    No, Mr Miller, the transatlantic bomb plot was real. Unless you want to ignore the “farewell videos” of the wannabe bombers who were convicted and jailed.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20070620144937/www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4236/29/

    Islamism is a serious business, and it needs to be addressed objectively. When Miller specialises in sites that promote character assassination of those who do report on Islamism, falsely setting these up as bigots, he does no favours to Muslims or to the society at large.

    Miller attempts to manipulate the media, cherry-picking and taking comments out of context to smear people whose political viewpoints he does not like. He never bothers to even consult his victims before publishing negative accounts of their activities.

    Miller does not seem to care about the truth any more, he is too caught up in the vortex of his own spin.

    *http://whois.domaintools.com/spinwatch.org

  6. Jimmy
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 12:55 PM | Permalink

    Strathclyde University, 16 Richmond Street, Glasgow G1 1XQ.

  7. Posted December 1, 2009 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

    Miller is in the department of Geography and Sociology:
    http://gs.strath.ac.uk/content/view/96/112/
    in the Faculty of Law, Arts and Social Sciences

  8. Sayed
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 2:47 PM | Permalink

    The “access to prestigious and mainstream media sources” is what bites with oddbods like Miller. They always blame the mainstream press for ignoring them. They think this is some kind of conspiracy when in reality the mainstream sees right through them and they are left with no-one to turn to except Pluto publishers or something similarly marginal to print their rot.

  9. Qutb
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 2:56 PM | Permalink

    Miller and his chums need to get a life. Do they honestly think their website neo-con europe is some intelligent analysis of neoconservatives? What a joke! They do not even know what that term means! Anyone who disagrees with their strange worldview gets labelled as a neocon. Strange people indeed.

  10. Soosoo
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

    David Miller is a Professor? Do you think it was a mail order qualification?

  11. whoops
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM | Permalink

    If Strathclyde fail to act they will be responsible for enabling this disgraceful lunatic to continue promoting anti-semitism dressed up as anti zionism. Incidentally, Miller is also just one step away from being an out and out 9/11 ‘troofer’.

    He and his staff Tom Griffin and Idrees Ahmed are not only very mediocre researchers with a pro Islamist agenda (that we can put up with) but also promoters of neo Nazi hate.

  12. Posted December 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM | Permalink

    David Miller is a Professor? Do you think it was a mail order qualification?

    No, I do not think it is a “mail-order” qualification.

    I happen to know this is a rather fine sociologist with whom I disagree politically. Try playing the ball and not the man.

    I am rather hoping you can see the difference towards which I am driving.

  13. bananabrain
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 3:53 PM | Permalink

    abu faris:

    i’m confused. if what is written above is true, then clearly professor miller is in some way flying in the face of best practice research methods and evidence-based argument, isn’t he? clearly there’s a lot i don’t understand about sociology, but either he doesn’t do very good research, or he doesn’t check the research of his not very good researchers very well, or am i missing something fundamental here? because i am not entirely sure how someone can be both at the same time a “very fine sociologist” and a total and utter conspiracy wingnut, which is how he appears from this article.

    i would appreciate your clarification!

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  14. whoops
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 4:11 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris,

    Let me first say that I am a big fan of your work on spittoon, and agree with you pretty much all the time. But your defence of Miller needs to be substantiated, as he is by no means just a ‘fine sociologist’. Putting aside for a moment whether or not he is good at his job, if you havent already you should peruse the Neoconeurope site to get a taste the nature of this man. Not only does he brand anyone who has ever even had a passing interest in Islamist terror as a zionist neocon, but he also smears countless ‘fine’ people with accusations of being far right simply because they are against Islamism. He is not someone deserving of any sort of defence

  15. Posted December 1, 2009 at 4:31 PM | Permalink

    Thank you, both bananabrain and whoops.

    I am in no way excusing or reasoning away professor Miller’s political stance. I think he his seriously remiss in his political positions. However, I do not think that without recourse to examination of his other academic output, there is any reason to describe him as a professor with a “mail-order” qualification.

    I think we need to be very careful here. There are people who hold cranky, offensive, or (quite frankly) wrong positions: and at one and the same time have shown very excellent work in other fields – Noam Chomsky, his political stance contra his work in logic, or the philosophy of language springs to mind.

    I am not in the business of attacking (failing good well-fouded grounds) fellow academics – despite my strong disagreements with them on non-academic, or other out-of-field pursuits. I think that way leads to the madness of Orwellian dystopia.

    I think the professor is wrong in most of what he agitates about politically; but I think to demean him academically is to make a rather large mistake – and finally, to undermine goo d critique with cheap ad homina.

  16. Posted December 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM | Permalink

    Apologies for typos. Lost my specs (again).

  17. bananabrain
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

    well, that makes sense – albeit i was under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that his political positions were in some way informed by his sociological expertise, in which case he can’t be both a fine sociologist and a holder of those opinions, but if this is a case, as you say, of “chomskyitus”, i can consequently conclude that sociological credentials are no bar to obscurantist bigotry, just as sociolinguistic credentials are clearly no bar to tendentious propagandising.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  18. Posted December 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

    your defence of Miller needs to be substantiated, as he is by no means just a ‘fine sociologist’.

    Firstly, I was most certainly not defending Miller’s political stance, nor his antics on the interweb.

    Secondly – No, actually, you need to defend your critique of his academic standards against not me, but rather the other academics at a leading Scottish university, who clearly disagree with you concerning Miller’s status as a sociologist engaged in academia.

    Bananabrain

    You want to try talking (out of field) to philosophers… these people are seriously not right in their heads (sez a philosopher).

  19. whoops
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 4:56 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris,

    There are two possibilities here:

    1) there is a justifiable case for questioning Miller’s academic credentials because he missed the fact that a person he was recommending as a credible source, Macdonald, was in fact a Nazi

    2) Miller is indeed a good academic researcher and knowingly reproduced the works of a Nazi

    it has to be one of these, and frankly they are both pretty bad..

  20. Posted December 1, 2009 at 4:59 PM | Permalink

    I do not think that without recourse to examination of his other academic output, there is any reason to describe him as a professor with a “mail-order” qualification.

    There is my objection, complete and simple.

    We defeat the enemy by being better than them; not by engaging in off-the-cuff insults, as it happens.

  21. Posted December 1, 2009 at 5:01 PM | Permalink

    I would agree, whoops – and I would hope that Miller too agrees; else my estimation of his work (in general) declines enormously.

  22. Posted December 1, 2009 at 5:02 PM | Permalink

    However, the depiction of him as a professor with a mail-order qualification is extremely insulting and serves us in no way whatsoever.

  23. whoops
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 5:08 PM | Permalink

    lol, Abu clearly your teeth are firmly sunk in to this ‘mail order’ issue, but my point is that now is not the time to provide spirited defences of this man considering what this blog reveals about his activities.

  24. Posted December 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM | Permalink

    You will, I hope, excuse my preciousness about such matters. I am an educationalist and academic – and a bit of a lover of history. It strikes me that I and my many colleagues are too often the first to get burnt when the persecutors come around; Oh, notice! – and their first call is to demean, rather than contest.

    Perhaps I seemingly defend an arsehole; but I do not defend him. Rather an idea yet I defend, I wish, to the death his right to make a complete tit of himself – even unto offence; even unto the dingy stupidity that he would wont – the alternatives are too grim to recall.

  25. Posted December 1, 2009 at 5:16 PM | Permalink

    Let him cant darkness/ that we might call the light/ but do not fail to mark him well/ your enemy is no fool./

  26. Bernie
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM | Permalink

    Take a look at Spinwatch’s advisory board. http://www.spinwatch.org/about-spinwatch-mainmenu-13/3165-advisory-board The people who seem to be regularly contributing to their “work” are Miller and his partner Dr William Dinan, Tom Mills, Tom Griffin, Idrees Ahmad and Tamasin Cave. Never heard of any of them. But look at the advisory board and then on the next page at the funders. People like Caroline Lucas MEP, George Monbiot, even John Pilger surely cannot want to have anything to do with this anti Semitism? There’s a guy called Ed Herman who is Professor Emeritus of Finance, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania sitting on their board … can you imagine what the University of Pennsylvania funding board will do when they hear their Prof Emeritus has got himself caught up with these racists? This is a sinking ship. They were called UKwatch before. Matter of months before someone takes them out and Strathclyde gets rid of any connections to Miller and Dinan.

  27. Posted December 1, 2009 at 5:21 PM | Permalink

    Possibly. Bernie – but I think you underestimate the imperviousness of British universities to whispering campaigns (unless your name is Turing, of course).

  28. David T
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 5:49 PM | Permalink

    That is a fair distinction to make.

  29. Mikey
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 5:51 PM | Permalink

    Ed Herman co-wrote a book with Noam Chomsky. Paul Bogdanor is a careful scholar. On this link you can see his review of Chomsky and Herman’s Manufacturing Consent. You will get a pretty good idea of Herman’s scholarly fakery.

  30. Posted December 1, 2009 at 6:02 PM | Permalink

    Thank you, David T.

    Mikey

    My problems with Chomsky are manifold; but I try to distinguish between my political disagreements with him and my disagreements with his work in philosophy (which is my field) – and the philosophy of language (which is my particular field – and his).

    I do think that someone can be awfully, frighteningly bright and also awfully, frighteningly wrong. Chomsky is terribly wrong about what is,. Perhaps it is me, but I find his brand of anarchism/libertarianism (perhaps all such, actually) frankly lame.

    On the other hand, I also strongly disagree with his socio-linguistics. For me nothing is innate – there are no bounds, only boundaries.

    I am worried, as it happens, by the other political ramifications of Chomsly’s views about language acquisition and Mind – but tis can also be over-egged.

    Actually, when you consider Chomsky’s political/ideological positions in comparison to his rather elitist views in the philosophy of mind and language, there are contradictions to be unravelled. These are not so undone, however, by confusing his politics with his oeuvre as a philosopher.

    This is not to deny a connection between these aspects of a person’s being; but rather to suggest that they are a tad more complex than simply a one-to-one relationship (see that utter shite, Martin Heidegger, for example).

  31. Mikey
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 6:19 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris,

    Thank you for your comment. Assuming you are an academic and can access it, I do recommend that you read Chris Knight’s essay, “Decoding Chomsky,” published in European Review (Vol. 12 No. 4, 2004, pp. 581-603). I would guess from your comments above you may find this essay interesting. If you do not have access, I have a PDF and would be happy to send you a copy. The people behind this site must have my email address as I disclose it to them. If you email them and ask for my email, you can use this message as evidence that I am happy to send it to you.

    You may also find the following two essays of interest:

    Robert D. Levine and Paul M. Postal, “A Corrupted Linguistics”

    and

    John Williamson, “Chomsky, Language, World War II and Me.”

    Both of these essays are published in the following book:

    Peter Collier and David Horowitz, (Eds), The Anti-Chomsky Reader, (Encounter Books, 2004).

  32. Posted December 1, 2009 at 6:20 PM | Permalink

    “Sein und Zeit” is an extraordinary work of philosophy, written by someone of manifest cowardice and wickedness, who I would be ashamed to have sitting at my dinner table.

    To be clear.

  33. Posted December 1, 2009 at 6:21 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris

    I have been on the end of Miller’s propaganda campaigning and it is nothing short of malicious character assassination.

    If he is using the university (and his students – Idrees Ahmad is doing a PhD there) to promote an agenda that sets out to discredit people, then it should raise questions about whether he is using his position of responsibility “responsibly”.

    The first duty of an academic is to abide by a code of truth and honesty, not deliberately distorting facts and misrepresenting others as a means to vilify them.

  34. Posted December 1, 2009 at 6:23 PM | Permalink

    Many thanks, Mikey.

    I shall look these up.

  35. Posted December 1, 2009 at 6:25 PM | Permalink

    Good to see you here again, Adrian.

    I agree entirely with what you have written.

    Perhaps, with typical academic irreality, I was concerned with the notion of academic freedom at the expense of common sense.

    I am happy to be corrected.

  36. Posted December 1, 2009 at 6:31 PM | Permalink

    Mikey -

    I am rather taken by Crispin Wright’s views on surveyability (yes, I know he is working in the philosophy of mathematics there). I do think these have important impacts on what I would call “boundaries”.

    Chris Knight is known to me and is rather a fine critic of Chomsky. I think I met him once.

    I presently do not have an Athena account (being outside of the EU) – could you email me the stuff?

    I grant rights to the God-like owners of Spittoon to release my email details to you.

  37. Posted December 1, 2009 at 6:44 PM | Permalink

    I don’t care too much about whether he is a good sociologist or a bad sociologist, but he seems to take his “expertise” – propaganda and spin, and then he actively promotes his own propaganda and spin.

    As an academic with a political agenda, using “propaganda” (rather than reasoned analysis and incontrovertible evidence) as a weapon , it does reflect on his fitness to be in such an influential academic position.

    He uses this Tom Griffin character to do much of his dirty work, and had no qualms about publishing an article by Griffin that maintained I “had an interest in” the BNP and that I had “underlying racism”. The article went on to compare me to Italian neo-fascist Gianfranco Fini.

    When I pointed out to Miller that I had worked for two decades in Hackney doing graphic work for anti-racist organisations, Miller demanded that I send him “proof” of my anti-racist work, and refused to remove Griffin’s article from his website.

    Demanding that I prove my innocence of accusations published on his website was disgraceful. It flies in the face of a basic legal principle: “Affirmanti, non neganti, incumbet probatio” – “it is the duty of the accuser, not the accused, to provide proof”.

    Miller was malicious and arrogant. I hope his university does hold an inquiry into his activities .

  38. Posted December 1, 2009 at 6:55 PM | Permalink

    “I don’t care too much about whether he is a good sociologist or a bad sociologist… I hope his university does hold an inquiry into his activities .”

    Oh dear.

    Where you ever, or have you ever been a member of the X (insert bugbear) Party?

  39. Posted December 1, 2009 at 6:58 PM | Permalink

    Were you ever, or have you ever been a member of the X (insert bugbear) Party?

    That is basically what he and Tom Griffin did to me….. I believe in karma.

  40. Mikey
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 6:59 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris,

    The Chris Knight article should by now be in your inbox. I hope you find it of interest. Regarding Chomsky and politics, you may find the links on the website of Paul Bogdanor of interest. In my opinion, that page is a wonderful resource.

  41. Posted December 1, 2009 at 6:59 PM | Permalink

    Exactly my point, Adrian.

  42. Posted December 1, 2009 at 7:00 PM | Permalink

    Thanks, Mikey.

  43. Posted December 1, 2009 at 9:36 PM | Permalink

    Sorry if I read preachy… but:

    I realise some might disagree with me; but I am trying to live by the rule that what I do to others should be what I would have them do to me.

    I didn’t used to be like this; and I deeply regret the time I wasted hating people . I used to hate and was hated in return; and my takings from that time are ashes in my mouth. I said terrible things to people who did me no real harm. I caused real pain and worry. I rue the day I ever set finger to keyboard. I regret the day I opened my stupid, loquacious mouth.

    Now, I want to do something for those people I offended, hurt and cut to the quick. I want to use any God-given gifts I have for the light and not the will to power that destroys. Now I turn my face to my Lord and I hope He does not continue to turn His face from mine.

    I look upwards and beyond and see hope. I look backwards and within and I am ashamed.

    So, I cannot abide witch hunts or loathing of the stupid. If someone is wrong, then correct them with gentleness. Encourage what is right and fight against the darkness with goodness – that much maligned quality that sets us apart from all the rest of Creation.

    Anger is easy, although sometimes understandable. Life is not easy – and mostly is not very understandable.

    That is all.

  44. Hassan
    Posted December 1, 2009 at 11:11 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris,

    Wonderfully put.

    Hassan.

  45. Big Buzz Blockhead
    Posted December 2, 2009 at 12:38 AM | Permalink

    “I didn’t used to be like this; and I deeply regret the time I wasted hating people. I used to hate and was hated in return; and my takings from that time are ashes in my mouth.”

    Really nice thinking here. I knew this website had the potential to engage in some elevated debate and discussion. Keep up the top notch posting.

  46. James S
    Posted December 2, 2009 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

    Bernie,

    I’ve come across Tamasin Cave before. She’s a vehement anti-lobbyist. I was doing some work for Save the Children and she had a go at me because Save the Children allegedly accepted donations from oil companies. Bit of a nutter if you ask me: saving kids’ lives more important than choosing between donors. There’s a film of her here at PR Week http://www.prweek.com/uk/audioVideo/ I notice she is wearing the same unwashed cardigan she was wearing when I knew her five years ago. I have some respect for women who do not wear make-up but less respect for those who fear washing.

  47. Posted December 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

    @ James S

    So effectively, Tamasin Cave lobbies as an anti-lobbyist.

    The ironies of self-appointed moralists never cease to amaze me.

  48. Winston Smith
    Posted January 28, 2012 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

    Any body ever heard of the Lavon Affair, The USS Liberty, Zoom Copter, Johnathon Pollard, Dr Alan Sabrosky, Prof Neils Harritt…..

  49. Posted August 27, 2012 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

    Great goods from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff prior to and you are just extremely fantastic. I really like what you have bought right here, certainly like what you are saying and the way in which during which you assert it. You make it entertaining and you continue to care for to stay it wise. I cant wait to learn much more from you. That is really a great site.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe without commenting

  • Categories

  • Archives