/lit/ - Literature

>>15125601
Nick Land

>>15125601
wasssup my guy?

>>15125601
Not a hack, you just started with the ecrites rather than his lectures.

JJ Abrams

>>15125635
Name Lacan's main contribution to philosophy senpai

>>15125601

>>15126649
Fuck off.

>>15126649
this

>>15126649
based

>>15126634
The woman does not exist

>>15126721
What is that supposed to mean

>>15126634
He wasnt a philosopher

>>15125601
I can't

the psychiatry equivalent of deepak choprah. people who like him but make fun of ditsy spiritual wine moms have zero self-awareness.

>>15125601
I enjoy using him for my literary analysis and as a tool towards reading literature. But that's where it stops for me.

>>15128862
Imagine believing in someone called Deepak holy shit

>>15128872
>>15128862
>>15125601
It's easy to talk shit. Most people do it to larp as someone educated.
Explain in an accountable manner what is wrong with Lacan.

>>15128049
It means that he is a either a faggot or died a virgin.

>>15125601
>Name a bigger hack
James Joyce.

>>15128935
Philosophically he's offensive because he was a syncretic huckster who shifted his system and ideas around to absorb whatever was popular at the time, and he would speak vaguely enough about his underlying system that he could be infinitely evasive when answering basic questions like whether he thought he was furnishing an actual account of the mind (like Freud did). His own students report this, that he was maddeningly contradictory and even outright dishonest about even his most basic ideas. As he grew older he went outright mad and his followers desperately tried to keep up with it and weave coherent systems around it but the outright crazy stuff is mostly forgotten now.

On a personal level he's offensive because he was a sociopath who ran a cult. It was very definitely a cult. Several deprogrammed Lacanians have written exposés on the movement. In the intellectual atmosphere of the time, there was a lot of excitement about revolutionary methods in the social sciences (like structuralism, which Lacan affected being in conversation with) and in the post-war French "care of the self," to borrow a phrase, so it was easy to amass followers. (Kristin Ross has a good book on this post-war French neoliberalism.) Lacan would aggressively canvas for new followers, often reaching out to ambitious and innovative social scientists, psychologists, even lawyers, and then when they uprooted and moved to work with Lacan, he would switch off the nice guy routine and make them dependent on him financially and professionally, so he could parasitize their special knowledge. The insider descriptions of the inside of his movement are very cult-like, lots of "breaking down and building back up," samokritika (enforced by the infamously cult-prone psychoanalytic ritual of being analyzed before one can become an analyst, a tendency not limited to Lacan's movement of psychoanalysis), bizarre and contradictory instructions, lots of "trust in me; if you don't see the wisdom in what I'm demanding of you, it's your fault" type shit. And of course all the seedy things that go with this sort of cult, run by a sociopath: fucking around with people's wives, extorting money, etc.

Well before his death his star had faded. Even other French intellectuals, innately prone to this sort of guru worship, sensed bullshit and wrote him off as a dangerous quack. With his death, he left behind a sad dwindling cult. He was only revived when hack academics, far enough away from his movement and from the Parisian milieu that they could only form an idealized and simplified version of it ("Lacan is a structural psychoanalyst and a gnomic guru and romantic genius"), shorn of all its seedy aspects and pathetic decay, reduced his non-system to a jargony syncretism of Marxist alienation, the linguistic turn, and a psychoanalytic hermeneutic of suspicion.

(1/3)

>>15129010
>If you read more of Lacan, and engaged with him more thoroughly, you'd find him to be a brilliant thinker!

This is exactly what Lacanians do, an inversion of what Lacan did to his own milieu. There is nothing new in Lacan. It's a re-arranging of post-war French philosophical commonplaces. When one begins to "get" Lacan is exactly when one begins to "get" anything originating from that milieu in general, because it's all shuffling around the same small set of ideas. That doesn't even mean they're bad ideas, but it does mean that systems built on them are fundamentally unoriginal.

If such a system isn't adding anything new at the level of the Grundbegriff, it has to find its justification elsewhere. The justification sought by most Foucauldians and so on is pragmatist: "It helps me think about such-and-such social issue," "it helps us be more mindful of these structures by designating them heuristically," etc. What were Lacan's pragmatic effects? A bunch of broken lives, humiliated people, wasted careers. He didn't even attract devotees because of some special charisma. He attracted people who were looking to become devotees in the first place, and needed someone willing to perform the abusive guru role.

Lacan didn't even leave behind a system like Hegel, of (however successfully) at least earnestly built-up concepts. Hegel was successful because his developments of his contemporaries' ideas and his attempt to weld them all into a system stand on their own, whatever you think of them or him in the final analysis. Lacan left behind a boring medley of psychoanalysis, ideology theory, and linguistic phil. The most "succesful" Lacanians are not Lacanian in the sense of thinking like Lacan, they are simply taking the mushy bag of concepts one can glean from Lacan's scattered writings, drying it out, and artificially articulating it as a system.

At least if they treated his system like a real philosophical anthropology on the order of Hegel or with the balls of Freud, they would be interesting. Instead they take the easy way out and just act like it's an ideal social-theoretical framework, and the next cutting-edge in Marxist critique. 95% of the academics are total dilettantes, deploying a caricature of the "mirror stage" idea with less sophistication than the average Wikipedia-reading shitposter. The remaining 5% are Zizek types, a small cottage-industry of more slightly sophisticated exploiters of the jargon. Heideggerians and even Derrideans are/were everywhere in the academy because Heidegger like Hegel left behind something like a systematic network of well-developed basic ideas. Lacanians can't afford to spread out like this, because there is nothing substantiating them that isn't borrowed from elsewhere, the emperor has no clothes. They are are forced to tighten up into a solipsistic little walled garden and perform obscurantism even harder.

(2/3)

>>15129025
>I actually find a lot of his work interesting, and his theories useful as devices

That's because you're a shitty thinker. Because you read this garbage during your young naive "what does this all mean?" phase, you associate the garbage itself with the gradual enlightenment and clarification you experienced as you gradually got your bearings. You've needlessly associated the concrete, messy content with the abstract universals (general ideas) underlying it and enabling it. Ultimately this is because you've only raised your abstract understanding of the universal content of the texts just to the level that you can unconsciously or semi-consciously wield them, and participate in the performative dance of reading and writing for other middling crit theory dilettantes, and you've gotten distracted by this dance because it has its charms, and stalled at that level forever. You never reached truly universal understanding and made a permanent, self-conscious possession for yourself of the ideas you ultimately work with.

You are every social theory professor or graduate student in every shitty second-rate comp lit department in the world, using "devices" from your "toolkit" of critical theory to "grapple" with texts and phenomena, but never thinking or writing philosophically. If Zizek is the shadow of a philosopher, you're the shadow of Zizek. Instead of writing philosophy and getting at the universal, in one good book that actually engages dialectically with the fundamental concepts of the era, you write 639 books because your vague demi-understanding of the concepts just barely allows you to go "hey... I think I can write some stupid Lacan shit about this children's cartoon......" Of course you can, because the concepts that underlie Lacan are the concepts of the epoch, just as much as the concepts underlying the cartoon are. But instead of realizing this, you just write the 639 books anyway, one after another, and some Foucauldian does the same with Foucault, and etc., etc., until we all have billions of vaguely similar books on vaguely similar topics deploying vaguely similar po-mo theoretical frameworks, diluted to the point that the average idiot American female graduate student can use them and brag about them on Twitter while shaving her head and painting her lips purple (another thing that should tip you off to their dilution and second-rate, second-order status), and nobody even remembers that we were supposed to be doing philosophy, not sitting around grad school or psychoanalytic seminars sipping Starbucks for 8 years vaguely assimilating crit-theory "devices" to put in our "toolkit" so we can enter the raffle to get tenure and wax profound about tampon commericals to a captive audience of another generation of graduate students who will then vaguely assimilate from us how to repeat the process and wax profound to another generation of Starbucks sipping cattle, and so on until time ends.

( 3/3+1)

>>15129038
>Fuck you, I had to study Lacan for 3 years at my university to even begin to understand him!

You should read Bourdieu's book on academic discourse. What you did was spend three years learning to perform Lacanian. Any time your Lacanian jargon makes contact with reality or "seems to make sense," it's because it's a second-order derivation of an actual concept, which you've now contributed to burying under whole artificial languages worth of pointless jargon and turned into a lifelong initiatic rite to learn.

(4/3+1)

>>15129052
Even though you repeated yourself a bit, that was pretty convincing.

Why are girls so crazy about Lacan though

>>15129052
>>15129038
>>15129025
>>15129010
I ( >>15128935 ) stand impressed. There's only so much I can take on an internet stranger's word (regarding how original or cohesive his ideas are), but this is a convincing case and frankly I'd like to hear you trash more people or read your stuff if you have stuff.

>>15125601
This dude

>>15129251
Donald is the shit

>>15129010
>enforced by the infamously cult-prone psychoanalytic ritual of being analyzed before one can become an analyst,
If i remember correctly Jung did that as well.

>>15125601
This guy, Rand, and Zizek

>>15129288
I'd endorse Jung, he's an authentic thinker who went his own way at his own expense

>>15129301
>he's an authentic thinker who went his own way at his own expense
What do you mean?

>>15129060
Because he's french.

>>15125601
heiddegger. derrida. the entire eastern ""wisdom"".

>>15129331
I think his work defies categorization somewhat, as a combination of empirical work, philosophy, and abstract methods of introspection. To understand his system at all requires a level of commitment (as well as some general understanding of german philosophy in my opinion) that his work can't invite on account of its distance in kind from related and more active fields and scholarly traditions, especially with psychoanalysis being more or less disowned wholesale by the mainstream. I'm really skeptical toward the field of psychology, personally, and it's hard not to speak from that here, but I think that whether or not the sum of Jung's work is tenable that the result of obscurity would be the same.
A clearer case would be that he separated from Freud, and Freud ended up being the prevailing force in history. Again, Jung doesn't connect to any existing channels except some new age shit and that hurts his relationship with academia even more. I really do think that Jung is going over people's heads because no one has a clear sense of what he is except those that are giving him interested attention. I'm fairly picky with who I read and I really enjoy Jung, and while Jung insists that he is a scientist and not a philosopher, I think as far as the modern mind is concerned he is a read for philosophers and not scientists.

>>15129441
I know that i cant offer anything besides asking a question but what do you think about current state of psychology? Is it getting dehumanized with each year especially knowing the rise of behaviorism and neurosciene? Do you think that jungian ideas will experience renessainse in the near future?

>>15129300
truth

>>15128049
If you don't get it, you don't get it. But it also means, unfortunately, that you'll be a slave to your passions like Schopenhauer, doomed to project your weaknesses onto women as some kind of pseudo-mystical power of theirs forever.

>>15129010
>>15129025
>>15129038
>>15129052
one of the best posts I've seen on /lit/

>>15129010
>>15129025
>>15129038
>>15129052

Curious as to what you think of Deleuze

>>15125608
fpbp

>>15129010
>>15129025
>>15129038
>>15129052
mcrumps btfo

>>15129052
>Heideggerians and even Derrideans are/were everywhere in the academy because Heidegger like Hegel left behind something like a systematic network of well-developed basic ideas. Lacanians can't afford to spread out like this, because there is nothing substantiating them that isn't borrowed from elsewhere, the emperor has no clothes. They are are forced to tighten up into a solipsistic little walled garden and perform obscurantism even harder.
cheap strategy, accusing (and rightly so) lacan of obscurantism and meaninglessness, which is already a common place, in order to save your petty heideggers and hegels, who are respected philosophers, yet as much obscurantist as lacan. what you don't get is that when you exploit this kind of critique (that is, aufklarische) the next victims of the most intelligent of your readers will be your beloved derrida, hegel and heidegger themselves.

>>15125601
>Name a bigger hack
Chomsky.

>>15125601
Evola
Guenon
Moldbug
Land
Hayek
Friedman
Rothbard
Rand

Hacks are everywhere

>>15129383
>Eastern Wisdom
You may enjoy this selection from Srimad Devi-Bhagavatam:
(1 of 2)
>In days gone by there reigned a king, named Uparichara; he ruled over the Chedi country and respected the Brâhmins; he was truthful and very religious. Indra, the lord of the Devas, became very pleased by his asceticism and presented him an auspicious celestial car (going in the air) made of pearls, and crystals, helping him in doing what he liked best. Mounting on that divine chariot, that religious king used to go everywhere; he never remained on earth; he used to remain always in the atmosphere and therefore be had his name as “Uparichara Vasu” (moving in the upper regions). He had a very beautiful wife, named Girikâ; and five powerful sons, of indomitable vigour, were born to him.


>The king give separate kingdoms to each of his sons and made them kings. Once on an occasion, Girikâ, the wife of the Uparichara Vasu, after her bath after the menstruation and becoming pure came to the king and informed him of her desire to get a son; but that very day his Pitris (ancestors) requested him also to kill deer, etc., for their Srâddha (solemn obsequies performed in honour of the manes of deceased ancestors). Hearing the Pitris, the king of Chedi became somewhat anxious for his menstruous wife; but thinking his Pitris words more powerful and more worthy to be obeyed, went out on an hunting expedition to kill deer and other animals, with the thought of his wife Girikâ in his breast. Then while he was in the forest, he remembered his Girikâ, who was equal in her beauty and loveliness to Kamalâ, and the emission of semen virile took place. He kept this semen on the leaf of a banyan tree and thought “How the above semen be not futile; my semen cannot remain unfruitful; my wife has just now passed her menstruous condition; I will send this semen to my dear wife.” Thus thinking the time ripe, he closed the semen under the leaves of the banyan tree and charging it with the mantra power (some power) addressed a falcon close by thus :-- “O highly fortunate one! Take this my semen virile and go to my palace. O Beautiful one! Do this my work: take this semen virile and go quick to my palace and hand it over to my wife Girikâ for to-day is her menstruation period.”

>>15130773
(2 of 2)
>24. Sûta said :-- “O Risis! Thus saying, the king gave that leaf with the virile therein to the falcon, who is capable of going quick in the air, took it and immediately rose high up in the air.
>25-26. Another falcon, seeing this one flying in the air with leaf in his beak, considered it to be some piece of flesh and fell upon him. Immediately a gallant fighting ensued between the two birds with their beaks.
>27. While the fighting was going on, that leaf with semen virile fell down from their beaks on the waters of the Jumnâ river. Then the two faIcons flew away as they liked.
>28-39. O Risis! While the two falcons were fighting with each other, one Apsarâ (celestial nymph) named Adrikâ came to a Brâhmin, who was performing his Sandhyâ Bandanam on the banks of the Jumnâ. That beautiful woman began to bathe in the waters and took a plunge for playing sports and caught hold of the feet of the Brâhmana. The Dvija, engaged in Prânâyâma (deep breathing exercise), saw that the woman had amorous intentions, and cursed her, saying :-- “As you have interrupted me in my meditation, so be a fish.”


>Adrikâ, one of the best Apsarâs, thus cursed, assumed the form of a fish Safari and spent her days in the Jumnâ waters. When the semen virile of Uparichara Vasu fell from the beak of the falcon, that fish Adrikâ came quickly and ate that and became pregnant. When ten months passed, a fisherman came there and caught in a net that fish Adrikâ. When the fish's belly was torn asunder, two human beings instantly came out the the womb. One was a lovely boy and the other a beautiful girl. The fisherman was greatly astonished to see this. He went and informed the king of that place who was Uparichara Vasu that the boy and the girl were born of the womb of a fish. The king also was greatly surprised and accepted the boy who seemed auspicious. This Vasu's son was highly energetic and powerful, truthful and religious like his father and became famous by the name of the king Matsyarâj. Uparichara Vasu gave away the girl to the fisherman. This girl was named Kâli and she became famous by the name of Matsyodarî. The smell of the fish came out of her body and she was named also Matsyagandhâ. Thus the auspicious Vasu's daughter remained and grew in that fisherman's house.

His theories are flat out ridiculous. If you don't see that, I don't know what to say to you. For instance, he claims that psychosis originates solely from the fact that you didn't experience the "no of the father", meaning that no one imposed a separation between you and your mother. It doesn't have to be your biological father, though, it can also be another relative or even something symbolic like a teddy bear you speak with or something. Now Bruce Fink, the foremost authority on Lacan in the US, in one of his introductory books, recounts the case story of a boy who had a mostly absent father and thus would have certainly become psychotic. However, at age 6, his appendix had to be removed and after the operation he awoke to the sight of one of his doctors holding his appendix in the jar and smiling at him. This, according to Fink, served as a substitute for the no of the father and, accordingly, is the sole reason that the boy didn't become psychotic. If you seriously believe that the sight of an appendix in a jar (or lack thereof) can cause someone to become (or not become) psychotic, you are a crazy person.

>>15130898
You'd love Rogozinski's The Ego And The Flesh: An Introduction To Egoanalysis because it continuously pisses the reader off with this kind of ridiculous shit

>>15130938
Has a cool edgy menstruation cover too

Is Deleuze a hack too?

>>15125608
Nick Land, Deloser and Moldbugman the biggest pseuds to ever live.

>>15130967
Even more so.

>>15130898
Lmao

>>15131009
How?

>>15130898
I'm really scared to start with the greeks, work my way up, and end up finding out I wasted my life reading books that are like this

>>15129038
>That's because you're a shitty thinker. Because you read this garbage during your young naive "what does this all mean?" phase, you associate the garbage itself with the gradual enlightenment and clarification you experienced as you gradually got your bearings. You've needlessly associated the concrete, messy content with the abstract universals (general ideas) underlying it and enabling it. Ultimately this is because you've only raised your abstract understanding of the universal content of the texts just to the level that you can unconsciously or semi-consciously wield them, and participate in the performative dance of reading and writing for other middling crit theory dilettantes, and you've gotten distracted by this dance because it has its charms, and stalled at that level forever. You never reached truly universal understanding and made a permanent, self-conscious possession for yourself of the ideas you ultimately work with.

Um, based department!??!

>>15131703
I don't wish to alarm you, but there may be nonsense or nonsenses in Aristotle

>>15131703
That won't happen. If anything the main danger is you'll fall off and become a history fag or a mysticism fag. But you're definitely not going to sit there reading something you don't find interesting, especially not some dr phil shit

>>15125601
>implying OP isn't the biggest hack of all

>>15129010
>>15129025
>>15129038
>>15129052
lol u big mad

dyou also read poetry and shit yourself when it's too "vague" or "obscurantist"

also it's just straight up wrong to say there are no pragmatic effects of Lacan's thought, there are more Lacanian analysts now than ever before, but your idea of "pragmatism" is clearly limited to the ability to instrumentalize ideas towards a comp lit thesis

>>15125601
remember when he got dabbed on by a double digit situationist shitposter and then stood there trying to sound intelligent mumbling without saying anything while the entire audience laughed with him and pretended to understand

>>15131760
>the main danger is you'll fall off and become a history fag or a mysticism fag
pls no

>>15130898
How does lacan theory stand in psychology academia?

>>15132169
He's being completely ignored. Psychoanalysis in general is mostly a footnote in academic psychology, except in some textbooks on clinical psychology and psychotherapy (not saying that this is justified). Hence Lacanian psychoanalysis, basically being the fringe of psychoanalysis, is not being discussed at all.

>>15132388
Are academic people trying to move on from psychoanalysis in general?

Althusser no contest.

>>15132587
Academic psychology has barely any connection to the humanities and tries to align itself with the natural sciences. So psychology's distance to psychoanalysis doesn't indicate anything about academia in general.

>>15131897
was it recorded?

>>15125601
Deleuze.
But yes, hacks.

>>15125601

>>15129052
1. I think you are more mad about how university as a certain system defangs theory and makes it a tool to generate symbolic capital. Your anger is just misdirected 2. And if you really think Lacan's insights are reducible to his intellectual milieu, then show me who conceptualized something even similar to object petit a, the concept of the Real, jouissance, "there is no sexual relationship", tell me how his four discourses aren't brilliant 3. I wouldnt care less if he was satanist children eating pedophile from hell, if his theory is solid, it is solid, stop moralizing where it is not needed

>>15133609
What do say about his claims regarding the etiology of mental illnesses (or structures, as he calls it) such as psychosis (as stated here >>15130898)

>>15134079
>please elaborate on "x"
how about a no

>>15131897
>stood there trying to sound intelligent mumbling without saying anything
You idiot, that kid got BTFO. Lacan made a decisive point about the inarticulacy/redundancy of his gesture and his totalitarian language, basically implying the kid was being dictatorial for trying to speak on behalf of "everyone".

>>15130609
>>15130967
>>15133510


While Deleuze can be accused of some kind of obscuratinism in his writing, the claim is largely unfair. While Deleuze's writing was hard to follow, he was having a bit of fun. He was a good Spinozan, and realized that a text would affect the reader in a certain way, and style was a major component of that. His style in the two books with Guattari is meant to force the reader to re read again and again. The books, especially anti-oedipus, are immensely funny.

Don't think Deleuze was some kind of hack. The man deeply engaged with the history of philosophy and his mimeographs show really original readings. For example, his books on Nietzsche and Spinoza are some of the best readings of those philosophers.

>>15134284
You would like Jacob Rogozinski and Frank Ruda, so absurdly humorous

>>15134142
frogs are so fucking funny, man lol

>>15134617
As much as I'm on Lacan's side, respect to the commitment of the situationist. Even Lacan was pretty sympathetic towards him, the guy was almost charming enough to successfully derail the whole thing. And to be honest, I think Lacan wouldn't have have cared, but the guy got water on his cravat, that's going too fucking far

>>15129248
You're too impressionable. What did he even say? You could apply what he wrote to basically every philosopher if you changed the relevant names and terms. There are no arguments, just a repetitive wall of text, one third of which doesn't even pertain to his work but only him as a person.

>>15125601
In no particular order:
>Dickens
>Pynchon
>Heidegger
>Hemingway
>Dickinson
>Whitman

>>15129038
this is the best thing I've ever read on this board

la femme n'existe pas

>>15133581
Holy shit this. Fuck that disingenuous, agenda driven, faggot.

>>15129010
Most of what you've written is true and applies to many psychoanalytic schools as well. But still, the method is one of the best ways to step out of your ego and self examine critically

>>15129038
>>15129052
What if he isn't a litcrit graduate but a clinician. What if some of the concepts are regurgitated Freud (who was pragmatically oriented). What if they didn't arise by some hack frenchfag musing about the nature of reality but by real world observations and genuine desire to help?

>>15129010
>>15129025
>>15129038
>>15129052
it's because of people like this that analytic philosophy is a thing lmao smfh

>>15132048
It will happen. Everyone comes out of it with an understanding that there are patterns that can't be described by current scientific means and that science can't answer everything, either they go really analytical into the details about such patterns and when they have occurred or they will theorise whats really going on.

>>15134284
>For example, his books on Nietzsche and Spinoza are some of the best readings of those philosophers.
No, they're not. They are sloppy, idiosyncratic, and wildly divergent from the texts and any sense of intellectual respectability. Just because you and other Deleuzian hacks think they're fun doesn't make them decent history of philosophy. Nietzsche scholars and Spinoza scholars very rightly dismiss him entirely.

>>15126634
why would I do that, he wasn't even a philosopher

>>15136354
>What if he isn't a litcrit graduate but a clinician.
of what? psychoanalysis? you have to be specifically committed to Lacanian analysis to be subjected to any considerable amount of his work (at least in North America). all other traditions in psychoanalysis treat him mostly in passing.

>>15134787
>You could apply what he wrote to basically every philosopher if you changed the relevant names and terms
>>You could apply what he wrote to basically every philosopher if you rewrote it differently
lol ok bud

>>15137192
Spinoza scholars don't exist and Nietzsche scholars think his notes to remember bringing an umbrella is significant.

>>15129010
>>15129025
>>15129038
>>15129052
I am fully convinced that Lacan is an absolute hack. These are amazing posts and I hope you and your family have great lives.

>>15129010
What's your view on Freud's system?

t. Has not read Spinoza, has not read Nietzsche, has not read Deleuze.

>>15138025
Can you read? Rewriting isn't just exchanging terms. The point is that there are no actual arguments.

>>15125608
/thread

>>15126634
He wasn't a philosopher though so that's a retarded post

>>15129010
>>15129025
>>15129038
>>15129052
Good goddam absolutely based

>>15125601
Patton Oswalt as the lead in the Lacan biopic when?

>>15125608
Based

>>15138407
>t. hasn’t read Plato, Aristotle, The Bible, Quran, Talmud, Gnostic texts, etc, etc, etc
eat shit you surface skimming troglodyte

>>15140075
all garbage and outdated and have no value outside of historical purposes. maybe if you stopped reading garbage that is behind the curve and got with the times you wouldn't be so retarded.

>>15140075
>Plato & Aristotle
I shiggy

>>15130898
Do you know the name of the book?

>>15140106
Nothing has more value than the Bible.

>>15125601
Bigger? GRRM must be about 300 lbs. or more...

>>15125601
Lacan is the ultimate pleb filter. Obviously, he’s not for hysterical anglos who need their very existence to be peer reviewed.