Stephen Eric Bronner

An introduction that starts out fine, setting the stage and explaining the historical background and then descends into an endless list of namedropping that becomes denser over time and starts to introduce unexplained terms and conflicts, while neologisms are dispersed as a cacophony of academic jargon in a postmodern syllogism of anti-clarity, producing increasingly convoluted sentences steeped in a Hegelian dialectic where the author's persona interjects opinion in lieu of description as show more to progress the narrative to conclude in a premature ejaculation of profuse praise for the discipline.

Something like that. One of the worst VSI I've read. show less

Mixed feelings about this book. As others have noted way too much jargon. But then again, the jargon comes from the theory itself, and the author does explain most of it—although not necessarily when he firsts introduces a term. The author also seems way too much a fan of these thinkers and their utopian ideologies, although again, he is rational enough to be willing to criticize their ideas (& their misuse by his academic colleagues), even harshly. Overall worth a read, but you need to show more know a good bit of philosophy to get any value from it. show less

I'm going to second what a number of other reviewers have written, namely that for the uninitiated the lack of definitions or introductions of a number of terms is confusing, to say the least. It is odd because the author notes early on that excessive jargon and a certain amount of obscurantism was built into the writing of the critical theorists more or less on purpose. Having pointed that out he, or his editors, leave out the extra signposts and definitions that would combat this.

That show more said, I liked this introduction. I think I find Bronner's flavor of Crit much more... sane... than I was prepared for having had less than... enlightened... encounters with a handful of people who loudly declare themselves a practitioner of this or that critical theory. And to be honest, on Bronner's take, I'm something like a crit-theorist-lite. So maybe his is a minority take? I don't know.

With another 10 or 15 pages (overall) devoted to terminology, this would have been 4 stars for me. show less

This slim volume packs a lot of information into a brief treatise. Basically a history of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, it's forgery, and its use as a tool of anti-Semitism. This is by no means an encyclopedic treatment, and is more a surface view than an in-depth analysis, but it serves as a good introduction to anyone who is curious and just starting to find out about this document. The author includes excerpts from the Protocols as the first chapter, and then refers back to show more these excerpts as he discusses various articles, where they originated, and how they were used. He briefly discussed Maurice Joly's Dialogue in Hell and traces much of what is in the Protocols back to this document. He also touches on the history of European anti-Semitism in general to discuss whether the Protocols were sufficient on their own to generate the hatred and fear that led to the Holocaust (they weren't). For the most part, he focuses almost solely on Russia and Germany, mentions American and English attitudes a bit, and only touches on more modern use in the Arab world. The book is a little dated, because the author regarded the protocols as basically defunct, but did acknowledge that with the rise of the internet, this could become widespread again, anticipating the dissemination that has occurred within the early part of the 21st century. Overall, a valuable book, especially as a starting point, but it isn't enough to make anyone an expert on the Protocols or anti-Semitism in general. show less