The Full Wiki

Anti-intellectualism: Wikis


Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intellectual and Anti-intellectual: Political cartoonist Thomas Nast contrasts the reedy scholar with the bovine boxer, epitomising the populist view of reading and study as antithetical to sport and athleticism. Note the disproportionate heads.

Anti-intellectualism is the hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible. In public discourse, anti-intellectuals usually perceive and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk — populists against political elitism and academic elitism — proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the quotidian concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education.

As a political adjective, anti-intellectual variously describes an education system emphasising minimal academic accomplishment, and a government who formulate public policy without the advice of academics and their scholarship.


Anti-intellectualism expressed

Anti-intellectualism usually is expressed through declarations of Otherness — the intellectual is “not one of us”, and is dangerous to societal normality, for having little empathy for the common folk. Historically, this resulted in portrayals of intellectuals as an arrogant class, whom rural communities viewed as “city slickers” indifferent to country ways; such communities tended to stereotype intellectuals as foreigners or as racial and ethnic minorities who “think differently” than the natives. Religious critics misrepresent them as prone to mental instability, proposing an organic, causal connection between genius and madness; they are unlike regular people because of their assumed atheism, and are indecent given their sexual mores, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, or celibacy.



Conflict theory: Galileo before the Holy Office, by Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury, a 19th century depiction of the Galileo Affair, religion suppressing heliocentric science.

In Classical antiquity (ca. 8th c. BC–AD 600) and in the Modern era (ca. 1500), religion tended to anti-intellectual sentiment — usually among fundamentalists who perceived doctrinal contradictions allowing too much freedom. Yet, said sentiment was not universal, e.g. Judaism’s scholarly and theologic traditions, and the Western university system evolved from religious schools. Moreover, mediæval and modern philosophersThomas Aquinas, René Descartes, John Locke, Immanuel Kant — considered themselves religious without contradicting their intellectualism; see the Conflict Thesis for further discussion of religious anti-intellectualism.

When doctrine stipulates definitive statements about natural and human history to be the provenance of sacred texts, and other matters of faith, intellectuals usually propose that such claims be substantiated via external scholarship. Therefore, a claim about the authenticity of the mediæval Shroud of Turin (ca. 1260–1390) being a religious artefact from antiquity could be scientifically tested; and a theodicy could be logically examined for consistency — although the results might provoke intellectual and existential doubt either confirming or negating the faith of the believers. Furthermore, when bohemianism, avant-gardism, and romanticism became integral to the fine arts, religious anti-intellectuals perceived them as amoral, if not immoral — and demanded their censorship. Historically, this remains thematically common to the socio-cultural trends in the Americas and in Europe, since the Protestant Reformation (1517).


Benito Mussolini: Il Duce of Fascist Italy, a police state.

Dictators, and their dictatorship supporters, use anti-intellectualism to gain popular support, by accusing intellectuals of being a socially detached, politically-dangerous class who question the extant social norms, who dissent from established opinion, and who reject nationalism, hence they are unpatriotic, and thus subversive of the nation. Violent anti-intellectualism is common to the rise and rule of authoritarian political movements, such as Italian Fascism, Soviet Stalinism in Russia, Nazism in Germany, and Iranian theocracy, en route to establishing the national totalitarianism.

In the 20th century, intellectuals were systematically demoted or expelled from the power structures, and, occasionally, assassinated. In Argentina, the biochemist César Milstein reports that when the military usurped Argentine government via the 1962 coup d’État, they declared that “our countries would be put in order, as soon as all the intellectuals who were meddling in the region were expelled”. In Brazil, the educator Paulo Freire was banished for being ignorant, according to the organizers of the coup d’ État of the moment.[1]

Extreme ideological dictatorships, such as the Khmer Rouge regime in Kampuchea (1975–79), killed potential opponents with more than elementary education. In achieving their Year Zero social engineering of Cambodia, they assassinated anyone suspected of “involvement in free-market activities”. The suspected Cambodian populace included professionals and almost every educated man and woman, city-dwellers, and people with connections to foreign governments. Doctrinally, the Maoist Khmer Rouge designated the farmers as the true proletariat, as the true representatives of the working class, hence the anti-intellectual purge. (cf. Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, 1966–76)

Governmental anti-intellectualism ranges from closing public libraries and public schools, to segregating intellectuals in an Ivory Tower ghetto, to official declarations that intellectuals tend to mental illness, thus facilitating psychiatric imprisonment, then scapegoating to divert popular discontent from the dictatorship (vide the USSR and Fascist Italy, cf. Antonio Gramsci).

Moreover, anti-intellectualism is neither always violent, nor oppressive, because most any social group can exercise contempt for intellect, intellectualism, and education. To wit, the Uruguayan writer Jorge Majfud said that “this contempt, that arises, from a power installed in the social institutions, and from the inferiority complex of its actors, is not a property of ‘underdeveloped’ countries. In fact, it is always the critical intellectuals, writers, or artists who head the top-ten lists of ‘The Most Stupid of the Stupid’ in the country.” [2]


Robert La Follette, Sr.
Juan Domingo Perón

Politics — When orthodox democratic politics fail, populism flourishes in the left-wing, the centre, and the right-wing of a nation’s political spectrum — each variety emphasising the virtues of the uncorrupt, unsophisticated “salt of the earth” folk against professional politicians and their intellectual helpers, public intellectuals, academics, think tanks.

In 19th-century Imperial Russia (1721–1917), the Narodniks believed that via the mir (peasant commune), Russia would avoid capitalism, and directly progress to socialism. In mid-20th century Argentina, the working class supported the corporatism of Peronism, but when its economic policies failed, he, as The Leader, failed, hence Peronism failed. In the US, liberal and conservative populisms demanded social change and the suppression of social change, e.g. the Progressive Party (1924–46) of Sen. Robert M. La Follette, Sr. (1906–25), and the sponsors of Sen. Joseph McCarthy (1947–57), each as a US Senator from Wisconsin.

Joseph McCarthy

Most forms of populism portray intellectuals as elitists possessed of rhetorical skills with which they deceive the common folk.[3] In the US, ex-president George W. Bush (2001–09) used populism to regain support for his government; the Washington Post newspaper story “The President as Average Joe: Trying to Boost Support, Bush Brings Banter to the People” (2 April 2006), reported that: “As he takes to the road to salvage his presidency, Bush is letting down his guard and playing up his anti-intellectual, regular-guy image. Where he spent last year [2005] in rehearsed forums with select supporters, these days he is more frequently throwing aside the script and opening himself to questions from audiences that are not prescreened. These sessions have put a sometimes playful, sometimes awkward side back on display after years of trying to keep it under control to appear more presidential.” [4]

Trofim Lysenko

Education — Populism also asserts that academic knowledge must be controlled, by “the people”, because educators must work within the politics of the interested parties, such as the government, nationally, and with parents’ groups, regionally, in establishing the content of the school curriculum. In the US, the common populist action is religiously-supported education politics to introduce Protestant Christian religious interpretations of national history and natural science to school curricula — especially Creationism, or variant pseudosciences, such as Scientific Creationism and Intelligent Design, as factually-equal counters to evolution. [5] (see: Discovery Institute)

In the USSR, in 1948, the Stalinist Central Committee officially imposed the Soviet (national) science of Lysenkoism upon agriculture — especially biology; the decree merely made doctrinally formal what had been government agricultural practice since the mid-1930s. As official Soviet science, the agronomist Trofim Lysenko’s version of Lamarckian inheritance (an organism can transmit acquired characteristics) opposed Mendelian genetics by emphasising the hybridization theories of the horticulturist Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin. That establishment of an official, Soviet biology included the dismissal and assassination of Mendelian scientists opposing Lysenko, among them was Nikolai Vavilov; in the event, Lysenkoism yielded poor agricultural results for the USSR. Moreover, because Lysenkoism was more political than scientific, its fortunes waxed and waned amid Russian Communist Party politics, ending as an officially discredited pseudoscience upon the fall of Nikita Krushchev, in 1964, consequent to his poor handling of Soviet agriculture, and other acts of mis-government. [6]

Educational anti-intellectualism


In public discourse, intellectuals and anti-intellectuals vie for control the curricular content of public and private education, because the curricula of a country’s education system determine the nation’s cultural formation; thereby, the real-world occupational and professional destinies of its graduates, as blue collar and white collar workers. Historically, said intellectual contest is manifested as Kulturkampf in Bismarck’s Germany, Culture Wars in the contemporary US, and Cultural Hegemony elsewhere.

Patrick Buchanan

In the Anglophone world, especially in the US, anti-intellectual politicians David Horowitz (viz. the David Horowitz Freedom Center), William Bennett, an ex-US secretary of education, and public intellectual Patrick Buchanan, criticize schools and universities as 'intellectualist', for teaching curricula emphasising 'impractical' rather than 'practical' education yielding graduates unprepared for ‘real-world’ work.[citation needed] As such, Buchanan depicted “America” (the US) as in a culture war, for the power to establish society's definition of “right and wrong”.[7] Moreover, he acknowledged that intellectually recognizing the sociologic value of the term “Culture Wars”, itself, was evidence of the cultural polarization he combats. In 1996, as a US presidential candidate, he promised to fight for the conservative side of the culture war:[8][9]

I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency of the United States, to the full extent of my power and ability, to defend American traditions and the values of faith, family, and country, from any and all directions; and, together, we will chase the purveyors of sex and violence back, beneath the rocks whence they came.[10]
Confederate Flag: Army of Tennessee

In 2004, as a newspaper columnist, Buchanan said:

Who is in your face here? Who started this? Who is on the offensive? Who is pushing the envelope? The answer is obvious. A radical Left aided by a cultural elite that detests Christianity, and finds Christian moral tenets reactionary and repressive, is hell-bent on pushing its amoral values and imposing its ideology on our nation. The unwisdom of what Hollywood and the Left are about should be transparent to all.[8]

To that effect, as a public (anti-) intellectual, Buchanan fights against environmentalism, feminism, abortion, gay rights, freedom of religion, and for the official US Government’s recognition of the Christian Christmas religious holiday as a national US holiday, and against the existence, purpose, and disbursements of the National Endowment for the Arts, and for Americans’ right to fly the Confederate Flag.[8][11]

At school

In the 2004 New York Times newspaper article “When Every Child is Good Enough”, John Tierney reported that conservative parents believe that US primary and secondary schools over-emphasize equality of outcome[12] to the detriment of their childrens’ individual (unequal) achievements. A literary example of that contention is the science fiction short story ‘Harrison Bergeron’ (1961), by Kurt Vonnegut, wherein the government’s Handicapper General imposes equality upon the eponymous hero, lest his existence — as the smartest, handsomest, most athletic boy in the world — hurt the feelings of the mediocre popular majority, (viz. the over-simplification, the dumbing down, of curricula).

At university

The “intellectualist” accusations against higher education, by such as David Horowitz, Patrick Buchanan and William Bennett, are based upon three often contradictory conservative concerns about curricular content:

(i) Political bias: That university professors, instructors, and lecturers, inculcate secular values to the students without ‘equal time’ for analogue views. Proponents of such arguments assert that the political bias sacrifices objectivity and traditional religious values in favour of political radicalism and left-wing perspectives, especially in the Humanities, and in the social sciences that challenge the cultural validity of white patriarchy, and in some cases exist chiefly for the purpose of doing so, see Women's Studies, Gender Studies, Cultural Studies, Ethnic Studies, and Racial Studies.[citation needed]

(ii) Deficient curricula: That there are a lack of general education requirements (i.e. the Humanities) such as philosophy, history, literature, music, et cetera, especially those emphasizing the contributions of Western civilization, in acquiring a balanced education.

(iii) Impracticality: That a humanistic education is not readily profitable in ‘real life’ as opposed to a technical (computer science, engineering, etc.) or professional (business, law, medicine, etc.) education.

Youth culture

Contemporary Youth Culture is a commercial form of anti-intellectualism orienting adherents to consumerism. The Frontline public affairs television series documentary The Merchants of Cool (2001) describes how the advertising business transformed adolescents’ language, thought, and action (cliques, fashion, fads) into commodities, and thus engendered a generation of intellectually disengaged Americans uninterested in progressing to adulthood.

The US youth subculture originated from the post – Second World War economic prosperity allowing adolescents to work and have a discretionary income — whilst still dependent upon parents. In turn, their economic power allowed business to sell them popularity — an identity as a young person — something that once was not for sale, but self-created; to wit, the British blog writer Paul Graham likened youth culture to an occupation permitting little time for education and intellectual interests.[13]

American anti-intellectualism

John Cotton (1585–1652)

17th Century

In The Powring Out of the Seven Vials (1642), the Puritan John Cotton wrote that ‘the more learned and witty you bee, the more fit to act for Satan will you bee. . . . Take off the fond doting . . . upon the learning of the Jesuites, and the glorie of the Episcopacy, and the brave estates of the Prelates. I say bee not deceived by these pompes, empty shewes, and faire representations of goodly condition before the eyes of flesh and blood, bee not taken with the applause of these persons.’ [14] Hence, the anti-intellectualism that conservative Christians (evangelicals and fundamentalists) espouse proposes that contemporary education subverts religious belief and faith, arguing that the atheism and Deism characteristic to educated people during the Age of Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, establishes the validity of their perspective, Moreover, not every Puritan concurred with Cotton's contempt for secular education; some founded universities such as Harvard, Yale, and Dartmouth.

19th Century

In the history of American anti-intellectualism, 19th century popular culture is important, because, when most of the populace lived a rural life of manual labour and agricultural work, a ‘bookish’ education, concerned with the Græco-Roman classics, was perceived as of impractical value, ergo unprofitable — yet Americans, generally, were literate and read Shakespeare for pleasure — thus, the ideal "American" man was technically skilled and successful in his trade, ergo a productive member of society.[citation needed] Culturally, the ideal American was a self-made man whose knowledge derived from life-experience, not an intellectual man, whose knowledge derived from books, formal education, and academic study; thus, in The New Purchase, or Seven and a Half Years in the Far West (1843), the Reverend Bayard R. Hall, A.M., said about frontier Indiana:

“We always preferred an ignorant bad man to a talented one, and, hence, attempts were usually made to ruin the moral character of a smart candidate; since, unhappily, smartness and wickedness were supposed to be generally coupled, and [like-wise] incompetence and goodness."[14]

Yet, the egghead’s worldly redemption was possible if he embraced mainstream mores; thus, in the fiction of O. Henry, a character noted that once an East Coast university graduate ‘gets over’ his intellectual vanity — no longer thinks himself better than others — he makes just as good a cowboy as any other young man, despite his counterpart being the slow-witted naïf of good heart, a pop culture stereotype from stage shows.

20th and 21st centuries

Rightist perspective

Political — The writer Robert Warshow proposed that the Communist Party of the USA was central to US intellectual life during the 1930s:

For most American intellectuals, the Communist movement of the 1930s was a crucial experience. In Europe, where the movement was at once more serious and more popular, it was still only one current in intellectual life; the Communists could never completely set the tone of thinking. . . . But in this country there was a time when virtually all intellectual vitality was derived, in one way or another, from the Communist party. If you were not somewhere within the party’s wide orbit, then you were likely to be in the opposition, which meant that much of your thought and energy had to be devoted to maintaining yourself in opposition.[15]

A contemporary philosophic descendant of Warshow is David Horowitz, an ex-Marxist advocating an ‘academic freedom’ movement, via the David Horowitz Freedom Center (1988), proposing that identity politics and left-wing academics indoctrinate university students with anti-Americanism.[16]

Feminist — In Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (2001), the Canadian religious studies academics Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young[17] propose that ‘ideological feminism’ — akin to the gender feminism, a term proposed by critic Christina Hoff Summers — is ‘profoundly anti-intellectual’.

Leftist perspective

Robert McNamara

Political — The 1960s–70s anti-war movement protesting the thirty-year US–Vietnam War (1945–1975), revealed in the The Pentagon Papers (1971), manifested its anti-intellectualism against US defense secretary Robert McNamara, whose business school intellectualism manifested itself in that war’s published body counts, a feature of attrition warfare, a military strategy applied when conquest is infeasible. The Marxist Theodor Adorno criticised such left-wing anti-intellectualism as actionism — philosophically-baseless action for its own sake, meant to effect political change.

Cultural — American leftist anti-intellectualism allowed the non-conformist students to romanticize the poor people of Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta, as an ideal wherein illiteracy was freedom from the suburban conformism of post–Second World War US society.

News media anti-intellectualism

Noam Chomsky

Public intellectuals, such as lingusitics Prof. Noam Chomsky, observe that the news media’s low-quality intellectual content is bread and circuses spectacle in service to commerce (viewers ratings) promoting Establishment perspectives with manufactured consent. Moreover, in the US presidential election of 2000, the mass communications media, especially television comedians, portrayed the Democratic Party candidate Al Gore as a boring ‘brainiac’ (a portmanteau word of brain + maniac) who spoke in a monotone about abstruse facts and figures incomprehensible to hoi polloi. His reported claim to ‘have invented the Internet’ [18] was especially ridiculed by anti-intellectuals, thus stereotypically portraying him as an intellectual detached from the common folk.

Like-wise, conservative political commentators, such as Ann Coulter (an attorney), Bill O’Reilly (MA, public administration), and radio personality Rush Limbaugh, argue that the news media betray left-wing intellectual snobbery when they portray right-wing politicians, such as Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin, as illiterate incompetents. In particular, O’Reilly, a Harvard University alumnus, is known for hostility towards the East Coast ‘liberal Ivy League elites’.

European anti-intellectualism

Cato the Elder

The Græco–Roman world

In the Roman Republic (509–27 BC), the public career of the statesman Cato the Elder displayed traits that would be considered anti-intellectual in the contemporary world. He vehemently opposed the introduction of Greek culture to the Roman republic, believing them subversive of traditional Roman military values and plain-spokenness. In 186 BC, he convinced the Senate to decree against the Bacchanalia, then a recently imported mystery religion, they agreed with him via the Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus. He urged the deportation of three Athenian philosophers, Carneades, Diogenes the Stoic, and Critolaus, in Rome as Athenian ambassadors, because he believed their opinions dangerous to the Republic.


Josef Stalin of the USSR.

In the first decade after the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks suspected the Tsarist intelligentsia as potentially traitorous of the proletariat, thus, the initial Soviet government comprised men and women without much formal education. Lenin derided the old intelligentsia with the expression (roughly translated): ‘We ain’t completed no academies’ (мы академиев не кончали).[19] Moreover, the deposed propertied classes were termed Lishentsy (‘the disenfranchised’), whose children were excluded from education; eventually, some 200 Tsarist intellectuals were deported to Germany on Philosophers' ships in 1922; others were deported to Latvia and to Turkey in 1923.

During the revolutionary period, the pragmatic Bolsheviks employed ‘bourgeois experts’ to manage the economy, industry, and agriculture, and so learn from them. After the Russian Civil War (1917–23), to achieve Socialism, the USSR (1922–91) emphasised literacy and education in service to modernising the country via an educated working class intelligentsia, rather than an Ivory Tower intelligentsia. During the 1930s and the 1950s, Stalin replaced Lenin’s intelligentsia with a Communist intelligentsia, loyal to him and with a specifically Soviet world view, thereby producing the most egregious examples of Soviet anti-intellectualism — the pseudoscientific theories of Lysenkoism and Japhetic theory, most damaging to biology and linguistics in that country, by subordinating science to a fundamentalist interpretation of Marxism.

Fascist Italy

Active philosopher: Giovanni Gentile, intellectual father of Italian Fascism.

The idealist philosopher Giovanni Gentile established the intellectual basis of Fascist ideology with the autoctisi (self-realisation) via concrete thinking that distinguished between the good (active) intellectual and the bad (passive) intellectual:

Fascism combats . . . not intelligence, but intellectualism . . . which is . . . a sickness of the intellect . . . not a consequence of its abuse, because the intellect cannot be used too much . . . it derives from the false belief that one can segregate oneself from life. . . .
— Giovanni Gentile, addressing a Congress of Fascist Culture, Bologna, 30 March 1925

To counter the ‘passive intellectual’ who used his or her intellect abstractly, and therefore was ‘decadent’, he proposed the ‘concrete thinking’ of the active intellectual who applied intellect as praxis — a ‘Man of Action’, like Fascist Benito Mussolini, versus the decadent Communist intellectual Antonio Gramsci. The passive intellectual stagnates intellect by objectifying ideas, thus establishing them as objects — hence the Fascist rejection of logic — because it relies upon a priori and a posteriori facts that hold principles (external to the matter-in-hand) as considerable in effecting an action or not. In the praxis of Gentile's concrete thinking criteria, such consideration of the a priori constitutes impractical, decadent intellectualism. Moreover, this fascist philosophy occurred parallel to Actual Idealism, his philosophic system; he opposed intellectualism for its being disconnected from the active intelligence that gets things done, i.e. thought is killed when its constituent parts are labelled, and thus rendered as discrete entities.[20][21]

Asian anti-intellectualism

Chairman Mao Zedong


Imperial China — The Tao Te Ching (ca. 6th c. BC) advises emperors to keep their subjects occupied and content with a ‘full belly and an empty mind’,[citation needed] and that for a people, ‘ignorance is better than knowledge’.[citation needed] Qin Shi Huang (246–21 BC), the first Emperor of unified China, consolidated political thought, and power, by suppressing freedom of speech at the suggestion of Chancellor Li Ssu, who justified such anti-intellectualism by accusing the intelligentsia of falsely praising the emperor, and of dissenting through libel. From 213 to 206 BC, the works of the Hundred Schools of Thought were incinerated, especially the Shi Jing (Classic of Poetry, ca. 1000 BC) and the Shujing (Classic of History, ca. 6th c. BC). The exceptions were books by Qin historians, and books of Legalism, an early type of totalitarianism — and the Chancellor’s philosophic school, (see the Burning of books and burying of scholars).

People’s Republic of China — The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was a politically-violent decade (1966–76) of wide-ranging social engineering of the People’s Republic of China by its leader Chairman Mao. After several national policy failures, Mao, to regain public prestige and control of the Communist Party of China (CCP), on 16 May, announced that the Party and Chinese society were permeated with liberal bourgeois elements who meant to restore capitalism to China, and that said people could only be removed with post–Revolutionary class struggle. To that effect, China’s youth nationally organised into Red Guards, paramilitaries hunting the liberal bourgeois elements subverting the CCP and Chinese society. The Red Guards acted nationally, purging the country, the military, urban workers, and the leaders of the CCP, until there remained no one politically dangerous to Mao. Three years later, in 1969, Mao declared the Cultural Revolution ended; yet the political intrigues continued until 1976, concluding with the the arrests of Lin Biao and the Gang of Four, the de facto end of the Cultural Revolution.

Democratic Kampuchea

When the Communist Party of Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge (1951–81), established their regime as Democratic Kampuchea (1975–1979) in Cambodia, their anti-intellectualism idealised the country and demonised the cities to establish agrarian socialism, thus, they emptied cities to purge the Khmer nation of every traitor, enemy of the state, and intellectual, often symbolised by eyeglasses. (see the Killing Fields and the Other)


Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: Father of Islamic Iran.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, a theocratic regime established in 1979, effected its anti-intellectualism by replacing secular law with religion, thereby provoking the brain drain-emigration of most of Iran’s Western-educated and -trained intelligentsia. In 1980, the government closed the country’s universities until the curricula were ‘purified’ of the Pahlavi Dynasty (1925–1979) corruption. The assassination of the poet Saïd Soltanpour, in 1981, was the theocracy’s most notorious anti-intellectual suppression; and secular education remained proscribed until 1982.

See also


  1. ^ Political Affairs Magazine - Power and the Intellectuals
  2. ^ Political Affairs Magazine - Power and the Intellectuals
  3. ^ The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, Third Edition (1999) p.668.
  4. ^ Baker, Peter; “The President as Average Joe: Trying to Boost Support, Bush Brings Banter to the People”;; 2 April 2006.
  5. ^ “How Christian Were the Founders", Russell Shorto, New York Times (14 February 2010)
  6. '^ The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought (1999), A. Bullock and S. Trombley, eds., pp. 492–3
  7. ^ The Cultural War for the Soul of America - by Pat Buchanan - Articles, Essays and Speeches - T H E I N T E R N E T B R I G A D E - Official Web Site
  8. ^ a b c The Aggressors in the Culture Wars
  9. ^
  10. ^ Announcement Speech by Patrick J
  11. ^
  12. ^ John Tierney, “When Every Child Is Good Enough”, The New York Times, 21 November 2004
  13. ^ Graham P (February 2003). Why Nerds are Unpopular.
  14. ^ a b Hofstadter, Richard Anti-intellectualism in American Life (1962), p.46.
  15. ^ Report of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy
  16. ^ FrontPage Magazine
  17. ^ Nathanson, Paul and Kathleen Young. 2001. Spreading misandry: the teaching of contempt for men in popular culture. McGill-Queen's Press, ISBN 0773522727.
  18. ^ Transcript: Vice President Gore on CNN's 'Late Edition' - 9 March 1999
  19. ^ Intelligentsia / Lenin to Gorky
  20. ^ Gentile, Giovanni, Origins and Doctrine of Fascism (with selections from other works), A. James Gregor, ed., pp. 22–23, 33, 65–66
  21. ^ The Oxford Guide to Philosophy (2005), Ted Honderich, ed., p. 332.

Further reading

Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address