He comes across as a low-key anarchist
I did not get that impression from reading the book (a long time ago). Instead, I got the impression that he was a competent scholar who was somewhat reluctantly reporting evidence that didn’t support his political views.
Here a clear denial that he’s an anarchist.
Interesting, thanks!
I imagine it’s been too long by now, but if by chance you happen to remember where you got the sense of reluctance from, I’d be curious to hear more?
(I guess we should note the possibility that he was an anarchist in 1991 but not in 2017, but I have no particular reason to expect that.)
I did not get that impression from reading the book (a long time ago). Instead, I got the impression that he was a competent scholar who was somewhat reluctantly reporting evidence that didn’t support his political views.
Here a clear denial that he’s an anarchist.
Interesting, thanks!
I imagine it’s been too long by now, but if by chance you happen to remember where you got the sense of reluctance from, I’d be curious to hear more?
(I guess we should note the possibility that he was an anarchist in 1991 but not in 2017, but I have no particular reason to expect that.)