re: #41 Buck

You can see it that way, I don’t.

If you want to talk about secret “subversive movements”, you are going to have to quote some crazy ass people. These nut cases are going to have a bottomless pit of bad stuffed inside them.

You must be dense. He was not writing a history of conspirological thinking. He was writing a conspiracy book. So yes, if he took this stuff seriously and he wasn’t an “intellectual history” researcher, he was bound to quote and legitimize some of those crazy ass people. One of the people he chose to legitimize was a batshit crazy antisemite, whose theories cannot be untied from antisemitism.