This is a guest post by Shiraz Maher
Professor David Miller, who operates the SpinWatch, SpinProfiles and Neocon Europe websites, has responded to a piece by my colleague Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens. At best, Miller’s answers are evasive and inadequate.
In the comments section of Alexander’s article, Miller writes:
Meleagrou-Hitchens argues that his profile should not appear on our website Powerbase, because he did not want to feature on a site which in the past ‘published’ the work of racist academic Kevin MacDonald.
Meleagrou-Hitchens well knows that – to our regret – one of our researchers did quote MacDonald on one of our sister sites – as opposed to ‘publishing’ anything by MacDonald.
This could be seen as misdirection by Miller. The difference between ‘quoting’ and ‘reproducing’ would be the terms in which the selected material of MacDonald was represented on the website. As it was, MacDonald’s views were reproduced, at length, and without challenge, on Neocon Europe. The passages appeared in terms which not only seemed to approve of – but also approbated – MacDonald’s views. The Spittoon points out:
NeoCon Europe still decided to present MacDonald’s views on their website as an objective commentary on Irving Kristol’s ‘The Neoconservative Persuasion’.
It is the representation of MacDonald’s views as authoritative and objective commentary that is problematic. Miller cannot deny this, and it goes much further than merely quoting something distasteful.
Miller goes on to say:
The person involved is no longer a contributor to our wiki projects. Note also that our project is a wiki with literally hundreds of registered users, many of them volunteers.
Again, there is reason to suspect misdirection from Miller here. Neocon Europe might well have ‘hundreds of registered users’ but even a cursory glance of the website reveals that it has only a handful of regular contributors. The most prolific are David Miller, Tom Griffin, Idrees Ahmad and Tom Mills.
As a result, we should be told who the specific contributor in this case was. In the interests of transparency and disclosure – which I know Professor Miller values highly – the individual involved should be named. We should also be given an opportunity to speak with and interview the individual concerned. I look forward to receiving this information soon.
Miller simply cannot continue claiming dispassionate objectivity while refusing to answer the simple questions put to him by Faisal Gazi and myself.
Again, for the sake of convenience, I reproduce the questions here:
1. Who posted the material by Kevin MacDonald on Neocon Europe?
2. What disciplinary action was taken against this individual? Do they still write for Neocon Europe? If so, why?
3. What steps have been taken to review all other material contributed by them to the site?
4. Neocon Europe claims to have ‘tighten[ed] the editorial process governing the posting of material’. Please explain, in detail, what new processes have been introduced.
At best, it seems only the second question has been answered. Even then, no documentary evidence has been forthcoming. For a group concerned with absolute transparency this is most disappointing.
Of course, all these questions leave aside the less than transparent Swiss banking system through which Miller receives his funding from a Lebanese business man.
Faisal adds:
This is the comment I have left on the Alex Hitchens’ CiF piece. I am still waiting for a response:
Professor Miller
While you are here, I wonder if you could clear up a matter of some discomfort to me.
I run the Spittoon blog and as a result, both myself and the blog have been given entries on your “Watch” sites.
Now normally, I wouldn’t have bothered with this at all. But the only reason why I object to the entry is because of a sentence which you have chosen to include in my profile:
“Gazi has developed affiliations with neoconservatives and attacked Muslims, Muslim organisations and ‘multiculturalism’ in general as a threat to ‘pluralism’ and ‘universal values’.”
Now there is a grave distortion in that sentence which I believe is entirely intentional. It is true that on my blog, I have chosen to criticise particular Muslims and Muslim organisation.
But you know very well that the objects of my criticism are exclusively Islamists and Islamist organisations.
As a result, your entry makes out that I am out to attack Muslims. I think your intention is to malign me as an anti-Muslim bigot or an Islamophobe,
Unless and until you can provide evidence that I attack “Muslims and Muslim organisations” without qualification and I would request an apology from you on this public forum. Furthermore, that you either edit my entry to reflect the truth or you take it down altogether.
Thanks.
20 Comments
‘But you know very well that the objects of my criticism are exclusively Islamists and Islamist organisations.’
Ah, but it depends on what you mean by Islamist.
Tom Mills of NeoconEurope has edited my profile. It now reads:
So obviously the NeoconEurope team have some comprehension of the term “Islamist”.
‘Tom Mills of NeoconEurope has edited my profile.’
So what do you have to complain about?
Funny, you suddenly realise what I mean by Islamist. When were you struck by the bolt of realisation?
When his boss, the good professor, told him to make the edits. haha!
Funny how “resistor” suddenly appears around here when the topic turns to Neocon Europe and the other pro-Hamas lobby sites.
Faisal, I have no idea what you mean by ‘Islamist’. Define it please.
‘Neocon Europe and the other pro-Hamas lobby sites.’
Dawood, in what way is Neocon Europe pro-Hamas?
resistor, are you one of the contributors to NeoconEurope and/or Spinwatch?
No
“Faisal, I have no idea what you mean by ‘Islamist’. Define it please.”
Please do not bite. This tactic is a very desperate last-ditch move that I have been noticing quite a few Islamists and their enablers have been trying on recently.
You cannot win. If you bite, he will then derail the entire thread in an obtuse attempt to prove that a term that is used by Islamists about themselves has no real meaning. If you do not bite he will claim that this means that the term has no real meaning.
In short: fuck him. Let him stew.
I agree Abu Faris, it’s intellectual laziness at best and outright dishonesty and stupidity at worst. But what’s even worse is the fact that it all stems from a form of soft racism.
This thread is riddled with the kind of dishonest tactics as shown by resistor:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/13/spinwatch-right-reply-david-miller?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
What does the term ‘neocon’ mean, resistor?
A neo-conservative (abbreviated as neo-con or neocon) is part of a U.S. based political movement rooted in liberal Cold War anticommunism and a backlash to the social liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s. These liberals drifted toward conservatism: thus they are new (neo) conservatives. They favor an aggressive unilateral U.S. foreign policy. They generally believe that elites protect democracy from mob rule. Sometimes the spelling is “neoconservative.”
I’m amused to see you oppose Islamism, even though you can’t define it.
Thanks Resistor – now explain how Moderate British Muslims who have a liberal outlook and oppose extremism are ‘neo-con’?
‘…explain how Moderate British Muslims who have a liberal outlook and oppose extremism are ‘neo-con’?’
Moderate British Muslims don’t support American imperialism, nor do they post on Harry’s Place.
So what is your definition of Islamism?
“Moderate British Muslims don’t support American imperialism”
What is your definition of “American imperialism”?
Does US intervention in Srebenica and Kosovo equate to “American imperialism”?
Does the anti-Taliban initiative in Afghanistan?
Because, whatever you think to be case, most Kosovans, Afghans and Pakistanis who fall under the “Moderate Muslim” descriptor will oppose your silly undergraduate politics.
Please ignore the trolling on the question of “Islamism” – resistor knows perfectly well what is meant by this term.
Perhaps he might teach his definition of “neocon” to his comrades over on MPACuk who seem to think it is applicable to senior Conservative politicians, some of whom so labelled might be better defined as paleo-conservatives.
I wonder if resistor might define the term “Zionazi” for me?
I’m sure he has one ready for “Uncle Tom” or “Sell-out Muslim”.
Resistor – you didn’t answer the question, a bit like David Miller really. This leads me to conclude that either you haven’t got a clue or just as dishonest as the dicks that run Neo-Con Europe. Also, the last time I checked liberals and progressives didn’t support Islamist Imperialism either. But I suppose they are brown and exempt from Universal Human Rights standards.