Recently I visited Washington, DC and had a chance to contemplate once again how incredibly rigid the foreign policy establishment is, what a tight, incestuous world this is, and how fearful people are of giving offense and losing face or even losing their jobs. We saw this play out in the think-tank wars around the issue of Israel and anti-semitism and the Center for American Progress and AIPAC -- there was a "take-no-prisoners attitude" and two staffers "had to die," each on each side of the dispute, before peace was restored. (And naturally Glenn Greenwald had the last world, insisting that now CAP had suffered a "chilling effect" on its speech because of all those pesky people who can't distinguisn between "legitimate criticism" of Israel and antisemitism.)
Something like that happened to me because I dared to take on Joshua Foust, Sarah Kendzior, Katy Pearce and others at Registan -- on my own blog or theirs, not even on the company site, which ultimately forced me to leave a good job. I've explained the outrageous thing that happened there, but today I had occasion to wonder about this again when I read this story about David Seagram, a pro-SOPA freelancer and zealot invading the comments section of other news stories and getting dismissed (temporarily) because he was out of line -- and the wild protests stirred up that forced management to take him back.
Frankly, I think management was correct in their original action -- although a reprimand rather than a dismissal might have been in order precisely because he was out of line (the reason he can seem "right" is because there's a certain fan base that is anti-SOPA and loves to stick it to the man). Seagram wasn't on his own blog or his own column, he was invading other NBC stories demanding mindshare just because he felt NBC wasn't covering his pet cause. It was really annoying and obnoxious, but the partisan bunch that read Business Insider did what all geeks on the Internet do these days -- they threatened and bullied. If BI didn't immediately restore their hero, they would never read it again. They'd boycott it and is advertisers. The implication was -- they might even sic Anonymous hackers on it! Boo!
So the freaks got their way, and a partisan crusader is back to do more damage spreading the anti-SOPA mindshare. It was an interesting episode in that it made me ask: how come no EurasiaNet readers did that for me? I didn't crayon outside the lines like that fellow -- I wrote on my own blog or Twitter or in Registan comments, not on the company blog, and what I wrote elsewhere was not objectionable -- except for ideological reasons to the Registanis. Why did no one stick up for me? Where's intellectual freedom and solidarity?
Oh, let me answer: because I'm not as important as a Business Insider writer (they're very popular and have very rabid fan bases).
Oh, and because everyone is dependent on Soros in one way or another in this field.
Oh, and because nobody understands intellectual freedom in this way anymore. If they ever did.
But let me concede on my own behalf: the reason a lot of readers didn't come to my defense is that most people didn't know, and there no comments open on EurasiaNet such as to have a community of people who could make their voice heard (the Facebook group for EurasiaNet occasionally has a comment or two from readers, but dissent is so harshly discouraged there any differences moderated away that it's not really a community, either).
And there's something to be said for not having to deal with comments, and something also to be said for not having to deal with wild rebelllious readers that tell you who to hire or not hire.
Oh, except in reality, that's what happened: EurasiaNet caved to Registan.
I wrote about the problem with Registanon my other blog, and on this blog wrote about the creepy suppresison of intellectual freedom -- but my blogs have only a fraction of the readership of EurasiaNet (although a story on the individual EurasiaNet blog pages, as distinct from the front page, actually gets *far less* traffic than my blog -- it's a mechanical factor in part dictated by Google reader and other RSS readers and SEO).
But more to the point: people are afraid. They might think what happened to me when I crossed Foust was wrong (and some who came to defense found their remarks were deleted!); they might think I should never have been locked out over a witch hunt started by the creepy Registan.net people, but they aren't going to say anything. A few might. Most won't. They want to keep things as they are.
So here's what happened when this issue was unfortunately -- and accidently -- put to the test. Someone going to a party asked me to come along but asked the host first -- I was then told not to come because Joshua Foust would be there.
Fair enough -- but still, I found it personally pretty offensive, actually, that somebody would actually ask me *not* come to a large party of people in the Eurasian field merely because Joshua Foust was coming to the same party. That is, sure, duh, I do get it that hosts of a party get to do what they want (like web site owners)! Especially if they aren't my friends and only distant acquaintances. And they surely get to avoid unpleasant situations where they think people might raise their voices or someone might make an Ottoman Slap. I do indeed get all that.
But still...what they really should do is admit that Joshua Foust is wrong to do what he does, and they should stop fearing him and/or wishing to accommodate him just to keep the establishment going. That's wrong.
I haven't done anything wrong; Joshua Foust has. It's important to remember that. While I realize there are social niceties at stake here, not inviting me to a party that Foust is at because you think I'm going to confront him is cowardice. Indeed it is. That has to be said. Yes, I get it that Foust, if not a friend, is an important figure to other people that likely they simply fear crossing. They fear crossing him because they think he has some kind of power, or following, or stature or they just think he's smart and interesting and certainly not worth dissing. And I get it that most people just like to avoid conflict. But it's wrong.
It shouldn't be me who is shunned for standing up to this bully; it should be Foust and his enablers like Kendzior and Pearce who are, for their outrageous behaviour. That they won't be is the way of the world and I get all that. Even so, I'm going to call it out. Maybe there will be only one person who gets it -- that's enough.
One thing I found interesting in this episode was that there wasn't a basic sense that I wasn't to blame for this story, confronting Foust. There wasn't a basic acceptance that Foust was outrageous (that some people do have, of course, especially the many who have been targeted by him).
And in addition to all the other regions that he paralyzes people from doing the right thing, there's this: a FALSE accusation was made that I spread a rumour or made a contention about Registan.net, to the effect that it is funded by Gulnara Karimova (hence explaining the rabid hysterical criticism of the Gulnara picket last year).
That's a lie, as I've never written or spoken any such claim. If you look at the post I made after I was banned from Registan, you will see I never make any such claim. I said that his accusation against Olcott for supposedly carrying water for the regime (!) -- which was ridiculous and somehow "ok" for him to make -- sure sounded hypocritical when he himself minimized the significance of the workers' shootings in Kazakhstan, and his awful attacks on the human rights movement accomplished the same thing.
Oh, to be sure, I'm very well aware that there is a rumour going around the community about Gulnara and Registan because I've heard it from several sources; it is a claim made by some; they even put in exact dollar amounts; they even explain, when anyone objects that such support would be counterproductive and too obvious, that in fact it is done through cutaways, and so on and so forth. They even say, if you object, "But Foust denies this," that "Oh, but Foust is likely lying about this." I get all that. Truly I do.
Even so, I think it's fake, it's not my contention, and I insist again and again, to everyone playing the game of trying to figure out who funds or backs Foust -- and there are LOTS who play this game, so it's really unfair to pin it on me! -- that he must be argued on the merits. That it doesn't matter if any of the individual writers of Registan are supported/funded/abetted/incited by any government or secret police or corporation -- or if their anonymous readers are. What matters is that they get a pushback on awful views that sound as if they are supported by governments. That's all. It's very simple.
I think there's really only one thing to do with situations like this: subject them to glasnost and more glasnost. And so I do. I realize that will make some people mad or uncomfortable. But again, what's really wrong here isn't that people spread rumours or develop suspicions or don't like confrontations in social situations; what's wrong is that there is a website that bans and deletes critics and that a group of think-tank fellows and academics could hound someone out of an intellectual discussion for their dissent and that they should try thus to maintain a status quo for establishments and their enablers. That's hugely creepy, and that has to be said again and again. What's wrong is that Foust shouldn't be told to behave, and that I shouldn't be welcome.
