I do appreciate your citing one of the passages in question since, even completely divorced from its context, it makes painfully clear that you have failed to understand the argument. I suggest that you try again if you are interested in receiving a response.
On the subject of "flaming" it was Nathan who referred to me as "full of shit." I referred to his "quasi-Stalinist worship of leadership and authority." The charge, which is, incidentally, by no means the same as the accusation of "Stalinism" is perhaps overly harsh. However, I see no reason to retract the substance of it as applied to him as well as well as to any number of functionaries working to achieve "access" within what we used to call "the establishment."