“Islamophobia” and “Anti-Fascist” Frauds
A recent exchange held on WDAY’s Hot Talk with Scott Hennan between Serb journalist and author of Sword of the Prophet, Srdja Trifkovic and best-selling neocon celebrity Dinesh D’Souza underscores the silliness of what today passes for high-toned political discussion. In a widely discussed book, The Enemy Within (Doubleday, January 2007), D’Souza, a John M. Olin Scholar at American Enterprise Institute,” contends that orthodox Islam and “American conservatism” (whatever that may mean at the present moment) are eminently compatible. Traditional Muslims, we are told, object not to Christianity or to traditional Western values but to American pop culture. Complicating this situation is the phenomenon that D’Souza, borrowing the phrase of his talking partners on the PC Left, designates as “Islamophobia”— an evil that he attributes to right-wing disparagers of Islam, including Trifkovic. Such slanderers have produced attacks on “the Koran as a gospel of violence” and on “Muhammed as the inventor of terrorism.” D’Souza, who claims to have studied the Koran, considers such positions “tactically foolish” and “historically wrong.” He conveniently presents Islamic Fundamentalism as a deviation from the historic religion founded by Mohammed in the seventh century. Since the detailed coverage of his work in the Washington Post in January might lead to the conclusion that D’Souza is an expert on Islam, one might also think that he has mined the relevant primary sources.
But Trifkovic, a multilingual critic who seems to know some Arabic and a great deal of Near Eastern history, revealed in less than a minute of questioning that D’Souza had no idea of what was in the Koran. He also reproduced the radio conversation (which I actually listened to) for the May issue of Chronicles. Any fair judge would have to conclude with Trifkovic that “D’Souza has not studied the Koran, and that he may never have even held one in his hand.”
For the successful author, however, a Catholic from Southern India who is showered with honors as a “conservative” intellectual beloved to the media, such chutzpah is part of the game. In an earlier, New York Times-best-selling work, The End of Racism, part of whose arguments the author borrowed from the late Sam Francis, whom he then accused of “racism” and helped to kick out of his job at the Washington Times, D’Souza makes a host of counterfactual assertions. For example, he told the reader repeatedly that “racism” was a product of nineteenth-century Europe, an assertion that might have made sense if it had been modified to read “scientific racism in the West arose during the Enlightenment, and it then underwent further development in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” The most outrageous thing about this journalism is that it is puffed up as serious scholarship in a culture in which real scholars have trouble publishing and marketing their books.
An acquaintance of mine, already in his mid-sixties, Anthony T. Sullivan, has been presenting an argument similar to D’Souza’s, about the overlap between Christian traditionalists and Muslims, for several decades. Unlike D’Souza, Sullivan is a distinguished Arabic scholar who spent a large part of his life in the Middle East. His bad relations with the neoconservatives, caused by his known anti-Zionist opinions, may have doomed his career but there is no question that Sullivan fully anticipated D’Souza’s arguments. He did this, however, without getting his research published by Doubleday and without the honor of being treated as a scholar of high standing in the Washington Post. Sullivan’s ideas, which are framed in elegant but guarded prose, have come out in slender monographs that only reach limited numbers of educated readers. The characterization of D’Souza in promo material as a respected scholar and a leading “conservative” thinker, both terms that would describe the less well-known Sullivan, is entirely out of place.
This imposture reminds me of another incident, in which arrogance was made to mask questionable learning. Last year the second most widely circulated political science journal, after the American Political Science Review, namely Political Science Quarterly, reviewed my work The Strange Death of Marxism. The person who was given the assignment, George Ross, is a faculty member at Brandeis University, and his remarks suggest to me that he understands the contents of my book about as well as D’Souza does the chapters of the Koran. The reviewer raged over the half dozen typos that showed up in the book, before going on to describe my scholarship as a “strange minestrone [sic!]of intellectual history.” “The book’s recurrent problems of scholarship show quickly” when I mistakenly identify Jean-Paul Sartre and his compagne Simone de Beauvoir as “Communists.” Technically Ross is correct that neither of these celebrated longtime defenders of Stalin and denouncers of any “fascist” who dared to expose the crimes of the goulags ever formally joined the Communist Party of France. But starting both, from the Liberation of France in 1944 onward, expressed unflinching support for the Soviet regime and for a Moscow-oriented CP in France. In the preceding period neither one did such things, nor they did show any scruples about taking copious favors from the Vichy government, as demonstrated by Gilles and Jean-Paul Ragache in Des écrivains et des artistes sous l’occupation.
Ross also attacks me for my “remarkably idiosyncratic” “order of arguments,” in a stricture that continues to amaze me. Since my transitions from Marxism to Neo-Marxism to something even less related to Marxism follows the evolutionary pattern proposed by a number of European scholars, some of whom I cite in my footnotes, it is hard to figure out why my unoriginal divisions are seen as “idiosyncratic.” Ross then proceeds to misrepresent my references to Habermas, as the preacher of the negative view of the German past that emerged from the Nuremberg Trials. Pace Ross, I am not linking Habermas to “the hard-nosed American colonels and Nuremberg lawyers who tried to de-Nazify Germany after the War” but to the pro-Soviet advisors and Frankfurt School “anti-authoritarian” psychologists who advised these non-intellectuals. If Ross can bring himself to look up some non-authorized reading on the themes of my book, he should consult Caspar von Schrenk-Notzing’s Charakterwäsche. This is the best work, in my opinion, treating the intention and range of “German postwar “reeducation,” a process that Habermas and Germany’s present academic and journalistic elites maintain was not sufficiently thorough or relentlessly enough “antifascist.” My chapter on Germany focuses on why national masochism, as preached by Habermas, has become a dangerous, aberrant characteristic of German public life.
The review also makes the astonishing statement that Western Europeans were less anti-Communist and more anti-fascist than Eastern Europeans because they had suffered under the Nazis but not under the Communists. Thus Western Europeans “had good grounds for worrying about a renaissance of extreme-right hate politics after the war.” My immediate response was “Go tell that to the Poles!” who suffered grievously under both Hitler and Stalin but who were never as “antifascist” as today’s European leftists. Ross also seems blithely ignorant of the bloodbaths, affecting tens of thousands of people, that the Communists unleashed in 1944 in Rome, Paris, and other Western European cities, to punish “Fascist collaborators,” but which conveniently took no account of their own collaboration with Hitler during the period of the Soviet-Nazi Pact. Such actions were undertaken to intimidate political opponents, and they certainly give the lie to the contention that Western Europeans had no sense of the violence that the revolutionary Left was capable of producing. Moreover, the statement about the “good grounds” for Western intellectuals to fear [note the generic] “Fascism” rather than Stalinism after the War borders on the moronic. Communists came close to taking over France and Italy several times after the war, with popular votes. They were kept from doing so because the more democratic Socialists had no stomach for an alliance with Stalin’s Western European puppets, and because in the Italian case, the U.S. meddled properly to prop up the Catholic Christian Democrats. (See my forthcoming essay in the Fall issue of Orbis.) There was no chance of “Fascists,” let alone Nazis, winning majorities or pluralities anywhere after the War, unless one accepts Ross’s quintessentially post-Marxist leftist designation “extreme-right hate politics” as our reference point. Presumably a popular failure to move far enough leftward in the multicultural spectrum to please Ross may be taken to reflect “hate politics.”
Before dropping this subject, I would note that there are points of view developed in my book which are indeed open to challenge. Such acute reviewers as Daniel Mahoney, Nino Langiulli, William Lind, and Paul Belien offer critical observations about my core arguments in discussions that are available to those who are interested. One can certainly challenge the degree of American influence that I ascribe to the European post-Marxist Left; and it is also possible to insist that I understate for dramatic effect the gulf between traditional Marxism and the present multicultural Left. Such criticisms have considerable merit, and they have made me reconsider some of my arguments. But Ross’s clumsy efforts at authenticating himself as an academic leftist do not fall into the same category of useful assessments.
As soon as I read his review, I called the editorial office of PSQ at Columbia University and asked if they would publish my response. Although I was led to think that open exchanges had been the practice of this publication, apparently in my case non-leftist facts have no status if cited for reactionary purposes. I then asked a well-healed, neoconservative-funded organization that purports to fight for academic freedom whether it would investigate the double standard. Although I was assured that “this is entirely up our alley,” I was not surprised when the organization did not pursue the matter. The reason is not far to seek: I did not qualify as someone who had suffered from academic intolerance, as a pro-Iraq War or outspokenly Zionist student or professor. Indeed nothing that I complained about fitted neoconservative concerns—and what is even more significant, my name would not have evoked warm feelings among those payrolling the watchdog enterprise. In retrospect it seems that I wasted my time by calling the journal’s editors and then the supposed guardians of my freedom. Still this frustration no less than the fruitless exposure of D’Souza’s pretence underscores the bad choices offered by what Russell Kirk facetiously called our ”higher learning.” Among these distasteful choices are media charlatanry, pseudo-conservative guard rails, and the post-Marxist sanctimony exemplified by my critic at Brandeis.
Comments
My dear man, you are so far up your own,
obscure intellectual arse that I wonder how you manage
to find your way to the toilet, let alone to be published.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Communism didnt die and it didnt start with the communists or marx. it is jewish fascism, judeofascisim, the only kind allowed to flourish. and for now, they, like sapphie, are masquerading as socially liberal neocons.
in a year or so they will likely be neolibs.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I thank you Professor Gottfried for another illuminating article. Why “Saffie” wishes to insult you and wear his ignorance on his sleeve is beyond me. That he hides behind a pseudonym however is telling.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Note to Sapphie:
At least there is no doubt that Dr. Gottfried has an intellect which, judging from your comment, is not so clear in your case. On the other hand, the presence of your arse hole and your ability to find your way to the toilet (indeed, one wonders whether you every leave those envirens.) is not in doubt.
With every good wish for your continued evolution,
Joe Bagadonotti
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Why does everyone resent Sapphie’s gem? I think the poor sap would rather spend time in Guantanamo (or in rendition) than be flogged by Taki’s rabble.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
While I must question seeking assistance from a “neoconservative-funded organization” (may as well ask the ACLU!), it sure seems there are some double-standards out there that promote inane tripe masquerading as scholarship. Authors like Gottfried and Trifkovic, though I don’t agree with everything they say, are wrongly marginalized by those who wish to maintain the status quo.
And a question for Bluestone: Do I qualify for the title “Taki’s Rabble” by simply commenting in defense of Paul Gottfried, or is there a sign-up fee? If so, I do hope membership in such a prestigious club comes with a T-shirt, baseball cap or tie pin I can proudly wear. A tote-bag or umbrella emblazened with the phrase “Taki’s Rabble” would be nice too.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Rabble? You don’t know the half of it. Here’s some behind-the-scenes footage of a meeting of Taki’s Rabble. And in the final few seconds, you can hear the students all clapping and shouting, “Gott-fried! Gott-fried!”
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xIJvwxjVSak
(And seriously, thanks to Professor Gottfried for this article.)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And here are the <a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H_7DkFlrdo>NeoCons</a> in training.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Well that didn’t work. I’ll blame these clowns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H_7DkFlrdo
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Having read D’Souza’s “The Enemy Within,” I can say that it is a masterly presentation of carefully selected facts (and careful omission of others) designed to lead to D’Souza’s predetermined conclusion. He brings up a great number of “straw man” arguments as to why the Islamic world is aggrieved with the United States, only to dismiss them - leaving only Islamic disgust with American decadence as the explanation.
While it is true the mullahs are appalled at the sexual libertinism and vulgarity of the West, he fails, I believe deliberately, to say anything about their much more significant grievances with U.S. military presence on the Arabian peninsula following the first Gulf war, and the U.S. government’s generous ongoing subsidy of Israel. Of course anyone holding himself forth as a conservative who dares to mention these points will be treated as Ron Paul was by Rudy Giuliani in the recent Republican debate.
I’ve also read Prof. Gottfried’s book “The Strange Death of Marxism,” and while I agree with most of what he has written I would take exception to the implicit claim that Marxism is dead. It has, rather, undergone a metamorphosis, not unlike that which the malaria plasmodium does at various stages in its life cycle.
Marxism-Leninism, the attempt to re-organize society economically along the lines of the former Soviet Union, is assuredly a thing of the past. But the Marxism of the Frankfurt School, which has succeeded it in the West, is not a mutation or a “post Marxist” phenomenon. It hearkens back to Marx’s own derision for what he called, in “The Communist Manifesto,” the claptrap of the bourgeois family, and the wisecrack of Engels that the only difference between marriage and prostitution was the duration of the contract. It draws particularly on Engels’s “The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State.” It is not very far from these to Herbert Marcuse’s “Eros and Civilization.” The Frankfurt School realized that if society was to be re-constructed, its very foundation - the patriarchal family - had to be demolished, and it was the failure of Marxism-Leninism to have destroyed the family that led to its demise. The legacies of the New Left, of which Marcuse was the intellectual godfather, are with us today in the forms of “womens’ liberation” and “gay liberation.” They are effective agents of destruction and we have already seen greater ravages from them in the years since 1968 than we did from three generations of Gus Hall-style communist subversion.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Gottfried and MSS:
As Engels was so open in his desire to destroy the patriarchal family to achieve socialist or communist ends, are there currently others so open about the same goals, or are they all destroying the family to achieve other ends? “After The Ball” is the most organized effort I’m aware of to destroy the patriarchal family model of 150 years ago, and I’m not aware of any openly stated goals in that book other than the acceptance of homosexual behavior.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Having the good fortune to know both Professor Gottfried and Dr. Trifkovic, I can vouch for their scholarship and exceptional expertise. Sadly that does not seem to be respected much by those posting on this thread who have apparently gotten lost on the way to Townhall.com. “Darn, it sure is annoying to lose that bookmark. I must have left it in my other Brown Shirt...”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Please bear in mind - or perhaps begin to consider - how Marxism was but one symptom of the materialistic superstitions (yes I’m inclined to use that word a lot, and will continue to do so) of the Modern Age. Marx was a relatively obscure figure during his lifetime - for good reason, as his thinking was not very original. He was elevated to prominence by the Russian Communists. Someone - I forget who - said something like, “the path from Marx to Lenin was a transition from scientism to magic”. And as history never repeats itself, I wonder where the next seductive superstition will arise and give birth to a revolution whose unintended consequences will devour its own children. I have become increasingly alarmed at the prospect for a certain kind of cultish and solipsistic Libertarianism to play such a role in America in the near future, perhaps involving the followers of Ludwig Von Mises creating their own cult of magical thinking under a veneer of scientism - the 21st century American analogue of the Bolshevik transformation of Marxism into Magic.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
ETA, the above comment was by me. Typo error in the name.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To clarify my previous comment for the benefit of Mr. Hayes: Both Engels and the Frankfurt School believed that the patriarchal family and private property were mutually-supporting institutions. Engels thought the patriarchal family, and what he considered to be the inferior status of women in it, would disappear with the disappearance of private property. The Frankfurt School, seeing the failure of Marxist economics in the Soviet Union and the distinct lack of allure that Marxism possessed for the working classes in the prosperous West, decided it had to reverse the sequence of events, and destroy the family first so that economic communism could be introduced afterward.
Once no one felt the loyalties of kinship, once every child was a bastard, then all would be equal, and prepared to share (indeed, to demand to share) equally with others without preference for one’s own flesh and blood. We see the partial vindication of this view in the politics of the American black community, with its 70%+ rate of bastardy. Blacks are the most reliable native-born voting block in support of redistributive taxation and economic interventionism. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Harlem) has gone so far to suggest that anyone who wishes to reduce marginal income tax rates is “racist.”
It doesn’t matter to the followers of Marcuse and Adorno that sexual libertines, man-hating feminists, and homosexuals have come along for the ride. They are welcomed as fellow travellers. The appeal of the Frankfurt School’s anti-family program to the predilections of such people, from its point of view serves only to hasten the day when the fond Marxist hope of a propertyless, egalitarian utopia may be realized.
People have been engaging in sexual peccadilloes of every imaginable variety since the dawn of time, but it is only in the modern age that anyone has thought it necessary or desirable to justify such behavior ideologically.
De Sade could probably be cited as a forerunner of that effort, but he was certainly not responsible for the great recent efflorescence of academic pseudo-scholarship devoted to the end of destroying the family - “womens’ studies,” “queer studies,” “transgender studies,” etc. All of this may be laid at the feet of the Frankfurt School, and particularly of Marcuse.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
MSS-
In “Why Homosexuals Want What Marriage Has Become” ( http://www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia_1804.htm ) the author points to the 60’s as a main problem, (which ties in well with the discussion last week about Mandolyna’s article “Freedom is for Fools").
You lay blame at the feet of Marcuse. I need to study up on Marcuse and the Frankfort School - any suggested readings?
My understanding of the decline of the family has been from an agrarian perspective, from reading authors like Wendell Berry and Hugh Nibley. This perspective is that the agrarian ethos centered on the traditional patriarchal family, where responsibilities and roles intertwined and overlapped, but were distinct. Long before Industrialism took its toll, Imperialism with its merchant trade and consumerism laid the groundwork for cutting the family free from its place in the daily functions of society. All three of these attacks on the family (consumerism, utopian scheming, the ‘60s) seem to flow relentlessly. Looks like all they need is the official stamp of law to be done.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
John Ball,
do you see libertarianism taking a militant revolutionary approach like the Bolsheviks?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thta is perhaps the worst thing about being on the real Right. You may have all the facts but ther are so few platforms to reach the general publicc.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Bernie -
That’s why I’m thinking a door-to-door campaign for Ron Paul is the only way he’s going to make a dent.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’ve been talking him up to friends and family. I am starting to elan towards Paul over Tancredo.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
My Ron Paul point has been, “even if you don’t like his politics, you know what you’re getting, and he’ll stick with it.” Anyone vaguely familiar with the man concedes I’m right.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Further to Mr. Hayes, of course the ‘sixties marked the beginning of the concerted attack on the family. The seeds had been sown long before, but mostly remained dormant. Suddenly the climate changed and they sprouted. What caused the climate to change?
Those who didn’t live through the ‘sixties (and many who did live through them) don’t perceive how intimately the phenomena of political New Left (campus unrest, the Chicago riots of 1968, etc.) and the counterculture ("sex ‘n drugs’n rock ‘n roll") were intertwined. They didn’t manifest themselves spontaneously - both were projects of the intellectual class.
One of Marcuse’s proteges at UCLA, for example, was Angela Davis, later a prominent black militant associated with the Black Panthers, and ultimately a hard-core communist who received the Soviet Union’s Lenin Prize. The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was probably the main New Left group inspired by Frankfurt School ideas. Out of the SDS sprang the Weathermen or Weather Underground, responsible for many bombings, jailbreaks, etc. But these revolutionary activities also tied in with the hedonistic counterculture - the Weathermen, in return for monies paid them by Timothy Leary’s psychedelic drug distribution ring, the “Brotherhood of Eternal Love,” broke Leary out prison, spirited him out of the country, and brought him to Algiers, where he shared digs with no less than Eldridge Cleaver, Black Panther leader and fugitive from justice.
The tie-in of homosexual political activism to both the Old and the New Left is similarly documented. Harry Hay, founder of the Mattachine Society, was a long-time communist. Tony Kushner, the militant gay activist responsible for “Angels in America,” was an undergraduate at Columbia University during the heyday of the New Left. Kushner became friends there with a woman named Kimberly Flynn. According to a New Yorker article on Kushner (Jan. 3, 2005) “Flynn had, Kushner says, ‘a vast appetite for pedagogy - she loves explaining things to people.’… Kushner, in turn, had a vast curiosity. ‘She led and I followed,’ he says. ‘She read Walter Benjamin and told me I should. And Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer. I had read some Freud and some Marx, but not nearly as widely’...” So, there you have it from the horse’s mouth - or some other part of its anatomy. Frankfurt School theorists provided the intellectual inspiration of Tony Kushner, one of the country’s most visible apologists for the legitimization of buggery.
The readings I suggest to anyone who wishes to understand the influence of the Frankfurt School in the attack on the patriarchal family largely follow the list given by Tony Kushner. Marcuse’s “Eros and Civlization” and Adorno’s “The Authoritarian Personality” are probably the books with which to begin. Dreadfully turgid stuff! Still, with a little patience you should be able to see that their ideas have become the commonplaces of left-wing culture warriors.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr Hayes - I hesitate to recommend such dreadfully turgid stuff, but if you slog through Marcuse’s “Eros and Civilization” and Adorno’s “The Authoritarian Personality” you ought to see what commonplaces their ideas are on the anti-family side of the culture wars. For example, the prominent gay militant, Tony Kushner ("Angels in America") has acknowledged his indebtedness to these writers.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr Hayes asked:
“John Ball,
do you see libertarianism taking a militant revolutionary approach like the Bolsheviks?”
My answer is: I see today’s American kind of Libertarianism having a POTENTIAL to take a militant revolutionary approach like the Bolsheviks.
Karl Marx would turn over in his grave if he could see how his ideas were turned into revolutionary superstitions by the Russian Bolsheviks. Although, it was virtually inevitable that Marx’s rationalistic, scientistic ideas would be turned into superstitious magic in the long run - because the foundations of Marx’s ideas were materialist superstitions, destined to end in folly and in anarchy and in murder…
...and so, yes I see the same kind of POTENTIAL for today’s American Libertarians to start a “revolution” like the Bolshevik revolution, which might SEEM to have good intentions in the first instance, but it will inevitably end in chaos and in evil, IF
(let me repeat, IF, or rather, as in geometry, IFF, if an only if) - IFF America’s Libertarians base their revolution upon materialist assumptions like Marx did.
I agree with around 90 percent of what most American Libertarians believe in - except for the belief which most of them seem to have in the superordination of Human Reason above Human willful stupidity, and the materialist assumptions which all too many Libertarians share with Marx.
However, I am 100 percent in agreement with any Libertarianism which acknowledges that the Christian belief in Original Sin will alway take precedence over any belief in Human Reason.
In sum, you can call me a Christian Libertarian. But I’m Christian before I’m a Libertarian, and I 100 percent do NOT believe that any economic system OR any political system can ever do any good for the world unless enlightened by Christ. And a corollary of that, is my belief that simply annihilating “government” will do no good at all, because the essential Human condition of
Original Sin will remain with or without any “government.”
And one more thing: I think it is very arbitrary and very abstract to posit any categorical difference between
property which is attained through “aggression” versus any other property -
because the legacy of ALL, ALL property, ultimately goes back to some kind of aggression, ie, ALL property has its origin in some kind of original sin, and to believe that we can ever unwind those threads and return to some kind of original, pure state in which property has NO relation to original sin, is to think a lot like the Marxists did…
...the Communists said their rule would only be a TEMPORARY measure, until they could lead the world back to an Edenic state in which no man exploited any other. And I fear, that the good intentions of many Libertarians will inevitably lead to some kind of “temporary” tyranny - very similar to that of the Communists - which will never end, because the only path out of our condition of original sin is NOT through any economics, but only through Christ.
So, do you understand me better now? :-) I would LIKE to be a pure Libertarian, but as I believe in Original Sin, I know it is 100 percent impossible to turn the world back to a time before original sin, except through Christ. No, no, NO “temporary” measures will ever solve this problem.
The Libertarians can never, never, never unwind all of the complicated threads of
“property”, because ALL property has been tainted by thousands of years of sin.
And so, yes I DO fear that there is a POTENTIAL for the Libertarians to begin with good intentions - just like the Communists did - but to end in tyranny, because ALL revolutions end in tyranny, except for the revolution of the Spirit which Christ began in year 33 AD. And Christ said his Kingdom is not of this world - Christ’s Kingdom is certainly not based on economics.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thank you Mr. Gottfried;
As far as all of the Charlatans on the Right and Left,
it reminds me of what Nietzsche said in his notes;
“We are approaching an Age of Shamelessness.”
Connected to this is a quote from the article
“The most outrageous thing about this journalism is that it is puffed up as serious scholarship in a culture in which real scholars have trouble publishing and marketing their books”.
The best example I could think of in this case would be
the relative anonymity of the great Cultural Historian
Morse Peckham.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Very interesting reading I must say. I learned a lot.
Lo
Click to flag this comment as abusive
http://pleasure-3.qanqan.net
http://sex-movie-2.qanqan.net
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.