A use of the 'facts' that any propagandist would love.
First, I never quoted you in whole or snippet form at the start of the latest exchange. I provided two entire articles, one an interview with Ben Bella and the other an article that clearly incorporated an interview of VS Naipaul in which he was probably relating his work 'Beyond Belief' with current events. Why you thought they referred to you or that you owned the whole thread reveals quite a bit about your personality, though.
Second, I'm not saying the terms you use have no meaning. I'm questioning whether or not your use of them has anything but taxonomic function at conferences about clerical fascism--sure, that's rather ungenerous, but look at what you yourself have just written. Classify o.k. But then use them in sufficient context and use them to explain the phenomena they describe (more on this at another time). That was the whole point of what I wrote about not using the strategy, 'define your terms' (I wasn't going to use it on you, I wasn't going to make you run in circles defining your terms). I was deferring to your background and your special use of the terms.
Third, you certainly responded sophomorically (hint, turn off the quote machine, read it, and then resond; advice I will try to follow myself).
Fourth, how 'intellectual' is it to blow off Naipual in one sentence (at least I didn't recount how many books by Naipaul I've read).
Finally, I'm not an anti-intellectual and am glad I can ply a trade and still be an independent scholar. I've published over 50 articles in my areas of speciality (language education, linguistics), but that hardly means I'm going to overwhelm you with sources about them unless you ask.
Charles Jannuzi