I thought Spengler was the "brainy" ghostbuster, played by Harold Ramis.

I am also a fan. I am not sure I always agree, but his ideas always provocative, and different.

Yes, his writings are very provocative. He goes a bit overboard with himself sometimes, but that's OK. Don't we all?

Now, who is he?

good storyteller.

My guess is that he is a Canadian expat living in Europe.

Gary Brecher (a pseudonym anyway)? Nah.
Not sarcastic enough.

Forget I even suggested that. Too much of a fan of Christianity.

I was wondering this myself recently.

Spengler has some superficial overlap with another Asia Times columnist K Gajendra Singh. Spengler has referenced him in a couple of columns, I don't think he has ever referenced any other Asia Times columnists. Singh was an ambassador to Turkey, Spengler smokes Turkish cigarettes. They share some stylistic tics. But reading Singhs articles I don't think they are the same man, but I do think they are connected. Spengler is Singh's son.

Einhorn....is...Spengler!

Spengler...is...Einhorn!

blaaaaggggh!

(ace ventura ref....)

Oh well, I tried... maybe somebody will figure it out...

Spengler’s ‘Decline of the West’ isn’t exactly a page-turner, but he has one brilliant passage, which I’ll cite here, concerning the fate of homo contracipiens as compared with that of homo progenitivus. Worth ploughing through for that passage alone:

“The abundant proliferation of primitive peoples is a natural phenomenon, which is not even thought about, still less judged as to its utility or the reverse. When reasons have to be put forward at all in a question of life, life itself has become questionable. At that point begins the prudent limitation of the number of births. The primary woman, the peasant woman, is mother. The whole vocation towards which she has yearned from childhood is included in that one word. But now emerges the Ibsen woman, the comrade, the heroine of a whole megalopolitan literature from Northern drama to Parisian novel. Instead of children, she has soul-conflicts; marriage is a craft-art for the achievement of “mutual understanding”. It is all the same whether the case against children is the American lady’s who would not miss a season for anything, or the Parisienne’s who fears that her lover would leave her, or an Ibsen heroine’s who “belongs to herself” – they all belong to themselves and they are all unfruitful. […]
… there is an ethic for childless intelligences, and a literature about the inner conflicts of Nora and Nana.
At this level all civilisations enter upon a stage, which lasts for centuries, of appalling depopulation. The whole pyramid of cultural man vanishes. It crumbles from the summit, first the world-cities, then the provincial forms and finally the land itself, whose best blood has been incontinently poured into the towns, merely to bolster them up awhile. At the last, only the primitive blood remains, alive, but robbed of its strongest and most promising elements. This residue is the Fellah type.”
For "Fellah type", today, read "Muslim".

I obviously don´t know who Spengler is, but, perusing his work, I am certain he is:
a) American
b) Jewish

It doesn´t really narrow the search, does it? ;-)

Spengler is certainly pro-American or at least an admirer of American power, but it seems strange that 'Asia Times' would hire an American to write about America. He's referred to 'American readers' in the third person before.

Melnorme, does that mean that I am right about the Jewish part? ;-)

HE IS CERTAINLY WELL VERSED IN THINGS JEWISH, BUT LUTHER WAS KNOWLEADGEABLE NOT LESS.

arcane, first, thanx! I am such a newbie that I had never read spengler. Delicioso!
But I have always read Wretchard since I came here, via Winds.
I think spengler==wretchard.

Style very similiar, but more newsy, without the classic quotes, poetry and art history allusions.

Both very chary about identity. Wretchard is variously reported to be in Oz or the Phillipines.

IMHO, only, but does my hypoth have any legs?

He mentioned wretchard, or at least his blog (Belmont Club) in Monday's column. It's a neat idea, but I'm not sure. Glad you liked the post :)

arcane, I saw that too! Wouldn't that just be too sly? The style is hauntingly familiar. I'll have to read somemore-- BTW that is my favorite post of Wretchard so far, he employ's network theory and the Dunbar number. Wretchard is both more poetic and more scientific than spengler. :)

Whenever I read this Spengler guy, I always say to myself, "Oh, yeah, by 'Asia Times' they must mean _extremely_ western Asia (i.e., Tel Aviv and environs), because he sure seems more interested in that 1% of Asia than the other 99%. But, then, lots of people who write columns are.

Anyway, he's good, although not quite in the War Nerd's class. There's lots of talent out there.

Spengler is not Jewish. He's too fond of Christianity to be Jewish.

My guess is he's an American ex-pat living somewhere in East Asia.

Spengler usually cites a lot of German academic literature and he seems to read it in the original, so he is either some kind of a German-American or has studied at a German university.

I would agree that he is an expat, possibly Canadian or American, living somewhere in Asia and out of touch with the mother country. He also seems to get all his information regarding muslims and Europe from newspapers, the web, and books, so he certainly doesn't live in Europe.

Probably some half-crank smoking opium in the dens of Bangkok, who thinks he's VERY smart and all the rest of us are clueless... (I'm still waiting for the Russians to show up in Irak, as he predicted they would.)

I have heard that Spengler is an Hungarian who emigrated to Australia after the 1956 uprising against Communism and taught theology at one of the universities there. If that is true he now must be very old. From his writing I do not think he is Jewish but rather a Protestant in the school of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He says very derogatory things about the Catholic Church.

Reads German, is very familiar with life in America, is well versed in European history and culture but obviously hasn't lived there in quite a long time, is well versed in Protestant theology, is not well versed in Islamic theology, admires Israel but probably isn't Jewish...

Hmmm...I'm going to guess he's some German-born professor who taught theology or cultural anthropology at some midwestern American college and has retired to Thailand or thereabouts. Where do I pick up my prize?

There is a great possibility that Spengler is Nick Land, the controversial philosopher or his friend Reza Negarestani, Iranian intellectual.

Nick Land is a former lecturer at Warwick university, author of a celebrated book on Bataille (Thirst for Annihilation: Georges Bataille and Virulent Nihilism). According to his biography, he has written numerous articles on Kant (Spengler’s favorite philosopher), Marx, Deleuze and Guattari, and Bataille. Disgusted by western intellectual atmosphere and “parasitic intelligentsia of decadent western societies” (as he puts it), he did a radical thing and left Europe; now he lives in China and writers in Chinese magazines. He runs a blog with his friend named hyperstition (which is described as ‘Fictional quantities that make themselves Real’) and follows exactly the same topics that Spengler writes about in Asia times, but they are far more complex and unusual since their blog is not for general audience but for hardcore intellectuals and like-minded people.

Link to their blog: http://hyperstition.abstractdyna...ctdynamics.org/

Some samples from Nick Land:
http://hyperstition.abstractdyna...ves/ 003797.html
http://www.ccru.net/swarm1/1_melt.htm (one of his earlier texts)


Both of them know Spengler. Interesting enough, people have suspected that one or even both of them might be Spengler (they have not given a positive or negative answer yet).

Look here: http://hyperstition.abstractdyna...ves/ 003869.html (see the last comment, Nick Land or Spengler?)
And here: http://www.dissensus.com/showthr...php?t=29& page=2 (see post 14. Reza Negarestani or Spengler?)


Reza Negarestani is Iranian theorist and writer, no one knows much about this strange voice, but he writes about War on Terror, oil, clash of civilizations and decadence of the west beside a lot of other philosophic topics.

Look at some of his articles and see the similarities (also check the comments and read their conversations):

http://hyperstition.abstractdyna...ves/ 004053.html
http://hyperstition.abstractdyna...ves/ 003999.html
http://hyperstition.abstractdyna...ves/ 003980.html


Their conversation on oil, war on terror and Islamic movement or Islamic Apocalypse:

http://hyperstition.abstractdyna...ves/ 003861.html

Now after reading their articles beside their undeniable similarities to Spengler, you can see how easily they can change their voice and prose-style.

news nerd, right on. amazing research. i'm a fan of spengler's, even though he is a bit shrill and pedantic at times. he writes really well, has clearly defined sources, and is pretty amusing. as for the ideas he brings up, they're interesting to think about. i'd say he's right about 50% of the time, which is a pretty good average these days. the theory about him being an opium addict in the tropics is appealing. having wasted a bit of my own life that way, in a lovely Asian country, i can see that situation as a possibility. i don't get a feeling that he's canadian. american, british, german... ?

Nick Land sounds like a good guess.

Whoever he is, he's probably a Brit who lives in Hong Kong or Singapore, who has been to the US and who is very fond of the writings of Franz Rosenzweig. He is definitely either jewish or protestant (but probably not Anglican).

I was probably wrong.

I am 95% sure that he is Dmitry Shlapentokh of Indiana University.

If you compare the writings of the two, you will find uncanny similarities.

Sometimes he uses British spelling and sometimes American, depending on the publication.

It is not surprising that a Russian would be interested in the demographic collapse of Europe (Russia has a TFR of 1.0).

or perhaps it is Werner Theurich of Der Spiegel.

Henryk Broder

He obviously knows German backwards.

I think Spengler's a woman.

She is sister of Osama

Spengler is Lee Kuan Yew.

His native language is English. He's from a working-class British background. He's a Leftist of some sort, probably a revolutionary Marxist ideologue. He's an amateur analyst but familar with the intelligence world like a spy novelists. He's probably middle aged and feels alienated from his surroundings.

Fascinating! This question started in 2004 and is getting responses in 2006 from web searches on who the writer is.

I enjoy the ideas and would judge him as a man who was raised Catholic and is not young. Probably American in America. Might even be a priest who does not want church named.

In any case I applaud Asia Times for publishing him and for keeping the identity secret. More reporters should have ironclad nome d'plumes (sp) so they can speak a little more from what they think and not have to deal with how they are preceived personally.

But, I contradict myself -- another of my fave writers, "Little Evil Annie, with a black dress on" can stir up the dead with what she says and everybody knows her name!

Keep it up AT!

Hmmm. He sounds a bit like Mark Steyn.

He is Jewish, though he makes some effort not to sound "too Jewish". I think he's located in "extremely western Asia" as Steve said above, but not that much, i.e., Jerusalem. Let's call it a certain theopolitical intensity which speaks from his texts, and which is hardly to be found anywhere else on earth. But it also fits with his American/British spelling, with his command of German, and with the center role of Franz Rosenzweig in his thinking.

http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=754

BUMP:

LCastle

Hmmm. He sounds a bit like Mark Steyn.

Email | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 10:14 pm | #

David Singer, from the Upper West Side.

"is he this guy?
http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?i.../en/?item=754\"

I think we have a winner! Nice find, anonymous.

("Spengler" = David P. Goldman, a music professor in NYC who also writes a financial column for Forbes. Compare Goldman's J-C Relations article on liturgical music with "Spengler's" column on the same topic. Virtually identical.)

Spengler is Jewish. He is very likely German speaking (and, therefore, Yiddish as well?). If Spengler lives in Asia, I would place him in Tel-Aviv or Jerusalem. Evidence of the foregoing is his references, including, but not limited to: his interest in Heirich Heine, and Bristow's study of European prostitution, his naive take on American Evangelical Christianity, (from where his admiration of Christianity derives), his clear understanding of the jihadi threat to human life and world peace, his clear understanding of Muslim propaganda and Arab mendacity that is the basis for the Muslim war against Israel, (including the artificial construct that is the so-called Arab "palestinians").

Having read the Goldman article, it strikes me as highly unlikely that he is Spengler. The conclusions that he reaches are somewhat similar, as is the preoccupation with Rosenzweig, but the writing style is not as lyrical or compelling, and the logic plods along carefully where Spengler's moves by great intuitive leaps.

I have another suggestion that strikes me as more likely. Consider the prophetic, and decidedly non-academic tone; the considerable (and Germanically-oriented) erudition; the romantic interpretation of folk cultures (such as backwoods evangelism); and the overriding cultural pessimism. What I am suggesting is that Spengler is, in fact, Oswald Spengler, preserved on a bed of dry ice these 70 years, and sporadically thawed out for journalistic use by the editors of the Asia Times.

After all, what better place to hide than in plain sight?

To suggest that Spengler is, indeed, a corpse, resurrected, as you have it, is patently silly; and contributes nada to the identification of our much admired scribe. Arnold S.: Do you have any constructive and realistic suggestions to make in uncovering the Asia Times' curiously mysterious columnist?

Both "Spengler" and Professor Goldman are enamored with Rosenzweig. Both evince a deep knowledge of and love for classical music. Both have remarkably similar opinions on a wide range of issues. Granted, Spengler's style is livelier and more lapidary than Goldman's, his musings more wildly speculative than the good professor's, but one might expect as much in an pseudonymous column where he is free to follow his fancy wherever it may take him, without having to worry about academic reputation or personal repercussions. Plus, Goldman in his financial columns has Spengler's amusingly egotistical penchant for continually citing his old columns as evidence of his trememdous prescience.


Compare:

http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=934
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Fro...e/ GE10Aa01.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Fro...e/ HH29Aa01.html


Of all the nominees so far, Goldman is the closest fit.

Arnold Jacob Wolf, "Franz Rosenzweig and Religious Music," Judaism 49/4(fall 2000):

http://www.findarticles.com/p/ar..._49/ ai_68738714

As Wolf shows, Rosenzweig was expert on early church music, so any expert on Rosenzweig must be expert also on early church music. Problem seems circular.

Wolf is too liberal to be "Spengler":

http://www.kibush.co.il/show_fil...e.asp? num=16207
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10118

He also says he doesn't read German.

Professor Goldman remains the front-runner.

non german, german speaker...he doesn't have any war guilt or any of the nonsense (a perverse view of history) that comes with being german.

'Spengler' is a Jew or a Judeophile focused on Goethe and Rosenzweig. This cultural historian meets the description:

Benjamin C. Sax (AB, AM Chicago 1973, Ph.D. Chicago, 1978), Associate Professor of History, U. of Kansas

-- History of Judaism Ph.D. Dissertation: Between Goethe and Rabbi Akiba: Franz Rosenzweig’s Hermeneutic of Citation
-- Images of Identity: Goethe and the Problem of Self-Conception in the Nineteenth Century (Peter Lang, 1988);
-- Inside Hitler's Germany: A Documentary History of Life in the Third Reich (D.C. Heath, 1992);
-- "Truth and Meaning in Cultural History" in Cultural visions : essays in the history of culture, ed. Penny Schine Gold and Benjamin C. Sax. (Rodopi, 2000);
-- Western Civilization: From the Origins of Civilization to the Age of Absolutism (Greenhaven, 2000);
-- Western Civilization: From the Scientific Revolution to the Present (Greenhaven, 2001).

In 2005, Sax taught at U. of Chicago. He also taught at DePaul U. a course on Judaism, using as his main text a book by Paul Mendes-Flores, who directs the Rosenzweig-Institut: http://condor.depaul.edu/ ~religi...Sax_268_201.pdf

Better this than a financier-pianist who writes a lot about Schenker. Google shows that no article by 'Spengler' mentions Schenker: http://www.google.com/search? hl=...es.com+schenker

"Google shows that no article by 'Spengler' mentions Schenker"

Maybe not in an article, but he does mention him:


Spengler
ATModerator

2885 Posts

Posted - 02/02/2005 :  19:27:54  
Brother William,
I like your musical comparison.
I recall that it was Heinrich Schenker who said that his method of tonal analysis could not show how a great piece of music was composed, but only reveal the structural levels inherent in it after the fact.

http://forum.atimes.com/topic.as...ue& TOPIC_ID=509

Sax sounds interesting. Any links to his writings so we can compare his content & style to those of "Spengler"?

Razib's "science only" week is not much fun.

Toynbee >>

Why expect much similarity of "content & style" between "Spengler" and anything published in his real name? Somebody's "private self" has escaped from a straightjacket. Without anonymity, no responsible scholar, clergyman, official, or businessperson could publish anything like what "Spengler" writes. His arguments are too offensive, his reasoning is too lax, and his style is too vain. Similarity of subject matter, not of style or argument, is the best indicator.

A description by Sax of Christian opposition to Hitler is online: http://www.wpunj.edu/library/res...ho/ Cho480_4.pdf . Someone who likes both Jews and Germany could stress that subject. But I can not prove my suspicion, so maybe I should not have mentioned Dr. Sax. I do not want to make problems for people.

David P. Goldman

Why expect much similarity of "content & style" between "Spengler" and anything published in his real name? Somebody's "private self" has escaped from a straightjacket. Without anonymity, no responsible scholar, clergyman, official, or businessperson could publish anything like what "Spengler" writes. Similarity of subject matter, not of style or argument, is the best indicator.

I meant "content" to include subject matter. Also, even if a writer tries to disguise his style, there are often little stylistic quirks that can give him away. Not that I'm an expert in forensic stylistics or anything, but a side-by-side comparison might reveal some obvious quirks in common between the two, even to us laymen.

I still lean toward Goldman, but Sax is a strong contender. Keep 'em coming.

By the way, and slightly off-topic, there's a David P. Goldman who co-wrote a book with good ol' Lyndon LaRouche ("The Ugly Truth About Milton Friedman", 1980). Could it possibly be the same guy who teaches music and writes for Forbes? If so, then I'd say that knocks Professor Goldman out of the running for Spenglerhood.

I always thought Spengler's style smacked of a non-native speaker of English. His vocabulary and style are both very unusual. I found a discussion awhile back on a German blog with a German professor that would fit the bill, but can't find it now. He had done substantial work on all the main themes that 'Spengler' writes about, including Rosensweig.

Anyways, if anyone can find this discussion (or better, the Professor's CV) for me please post it here.

Salman Rushdie.

David P. Goldman it is!

If you have read Spengler's outpourings over the years, and compare them with Goldman's article linked above, the identity of their ideas and conclusions as well as the authorities whom they rely on (Rosenzweig, Heine, John Paul II, Neusner, Ratzinger) is striking. Their opinions on Nietzsche and Joseph Campbell are identical. Both of them are experts on classical music, and speak German. There are countless other similarities.

Even the LaRouche connection matches. According to Steve Sailer (http://tinyurl.com/23xaoy), Spengler used to be a LaRouche associate. According to LaRouche (http://tinyurl.com/yswnso), he fired Goldman in the 80s for "his opportunistic moral corruption, and dubious, duplicitously conducted dalliances, in the economic and related departments of our work". LaRouche also contends that Goldman became a neocon, which is true of Spengler, too (even if he denies it).

I think that respected members of the forum are overlooking some hints dropped by Spengler and indicating at his personal involvement in the Cold War struggle between the US and USSR, particularly during the early to mid 80s, and his insider's knowledge of decisions made on both sides. This rules out pretty much everybody mentioned here. Spengler's English looks to me too carefully constructed to be native, it is an idiosyncratic English of a self-made native-like writer, someone much in the spirit of Nabokov. Spengler puts so much stress on his command of the German language and his interest and knowledge of German culture and litterature that I am sure he is not a German, and moreover he is someone whose knowledge of German does not show on his C.V. at all. Spengler's quotes from classical Russian poetry (in what might well be his own translation), as well as his understanding of some aspects of Russian ethic and morality, make me suspect that he is a Russian, possibly a former high-ranking KGB officer who has later defected to the West. Now take your pick. Even if I had some names in mind, I would not reveal them, because a good - albeit accidental - guess would put the very life of an outstanding political commentator in danger from hundreds of millions of members of a certain global community whose mentality Spengler is dissecting so neatly.

Good find, Victor. I concur: "Spengler" is very likely David P. Goldman, financial columnist for Forbes and Professor of Music at Mannes College.

I wouldn't discount Volodya's points.

For example:

Reagan's people made no secret of their conviction that communism could be rolled back, and not merely contained. Their greatest worry, not an idle one, was that Moscow might fight. How do I know this is true? As Alexander Pushkin said in the prologue to "Ruslan and Ludmila", I was there, and I also drank the mead.

This doesn't seem like a planted red herring, but who knows? It is also not clear if he was in Reagan's cabinet or in Russia.

Some hints from a thread in his forum:

That's an old Radio Yerewan gag from the Brezhnev era:

Q: Is it true that America has more cars than we do?

A: In principle, yes. But we have more parking spaces.



How many of you actually have spent time in countries beset by hyperinflation? I have, on more than one occasion. I have seen tomato-sellers in a Central American market run to change money into dollars every hour during a hyper-inflation.

Didn't "Spengler" also predict a couple of years ago that Russia would be teaming up with the U.S. to kick jihadi butt in Iraq? That kind of nutty prognistication doesn't sound like something a seasoned KGB officer or Reagan admin intel analyst would offer up. Sounds more like the delirious speculation of some sheltered NYC music prof and investment banker who fancies himself a modern-day Tyresias. And those "hints" could be either pure fantasy or second-hand anecdotes rewritten as personal history.

I'm convinced that Spengler is David P. Goldman. Spengler has never exhibited any insider knowledge of Cold War politics, and he rarely says anything about Russia, even if he recently wrote a cheerleading piece for Putin.

Compare these two passages about Joseph Campbell from Goldman and Spengler:

Goldman: "Yet Campbell, whose promotion of pagan mythology helped prepare the intellectual climate for today’s multiculturalism, was an antisemite. This was widely known during his lifetime by his colleagues at Sarah Lawrence, and exposed in Brendan Gill’s 1989 famous expose in 'The New York Review of Books' after Campbell’s death. Although this information circulated widely, Campbell remains hugely popular among American Jews, who dismiss his dislike of Jews as a fortuitous aberration. Campbell’s antisemitism, however, stems directly from his notion of universality: he bristled with annoyance at the Jews’ claim to special status, of being a people with a unique history, exempt from Campbell’s putative universal myth." (http://tinyurl.com/yqtggg)

Spengler: "Campbell is perfectly dreadful. Brendan Gill's notorious expose of his anti-Semitism in a 1989 New York Review of Books article was substantially correct, according to friends who observed Campbell at Sarah Lawrence College. But Gill did not quite get why Campbell was an anti-Semite: because the Hebrew Bible departs so drastically from his supposed universal Hero Myth, it invalidates its universality and makes the Jews different. For a neo-pagan seeking to suck Christianity back into the primeval muck, this was intolerable." (http://tinyurl.com/yst4wa)

Let's look at these two excerpts. In both of them, Campbell is comdemned as a hateful charlatan. Both writers think that Campbell's universal hero myth does not apply to the Jews. Both have also read Brendan Gill's 1989 NY Review of Books article about Campbell. On top of that, both Goldman and Spengler apparently have friends at Sarah Lawrence College who knew Campbell and considered him an anti-Semite.

Either Spengler is Goldman, or he is passing off Goldman's ideas as his own.

Hmm. Reading Goldman's stuff certainly does feel like reading Spengler's stuff.

At this point I would tend to agree that references to the inner workings of Soviet or American intelligence are most likely fantasy.

I haven't yet seen Goldman's bio, though.

Sorry fellows, I was unable to find the German blog with the speculations. If I remember correctly, the prime candidate was a German professor with an extensive biblography on German culture and Judaism, as well as some political thought possibly relating to American exceptionalism.

As for the Campbell nonsense, it looks like both Goldman and Spengler (assuming they are different people) just copied this out of wikipedia:

“Soon after Campbell's death, Brendan Gill criticized him in an article, "The Faces of Joseph Campbell," published in the New York Review of Books on September 28, 1989, accusing him of "reactionary" political beliefs. Others repeated the charge in a later exchange about the article in the same magazine. Gill reported that some of Campbell's colleagues at Sarah Lawrence came forward to declare Campbell, who bristled at the insistence that Biblical myth was history, as an anti-Semite. Television commentator Tom Snyder even suggested that viewers write to PBS and to libraries and ask them to cease showing the Moyers/Campbell documentary.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Jos...ell#Controversy

The only departure I can find from this account is that Spengler claims to know people at Sarah Lawrence. Goldman does not. Spengler also claims to know soviet spies and have been involved in some sort resistance(?) work in Eastern Europe during the soviet collapse. Now, either Spengler is lying or he is telling the truth. If he is telling the truth, we need more of a tie in then Goldman is a music teacher and there are music teachers in Eastern Europe, or Spengler and Goldman both read the same encyclopedia article. If he is lying then none of this evidence about Sarah Lawrence even matters.

Of course, Spengler could be lying about some things and telling the truth about others, in which case I'm not sure how we could get to the bottom of this. And, Toynbee, isn't that name a bit audacious? You might as well call yourself Tyresias.

Anyways, I am compiling some of the various information I have found on Spengler's identity into a single file. I don't plan to post it on the internet, but if anyone wants a copy email me. This is a give a little take a little sort of game, so please come with some information.

Also, anyone can get "bonus points" for hard information regarding possiblities other than the two boring candidates posted above. If I reach a critical mass I will post my conclusions and links back on this board.

And, Toynbee, isn't that name a bit audacious? You might as well call yourself Tyresias.

Well, I was going to call myself by my real name: God. But I thought others might be too intimidated to engage in real debate if I revealed Myself in all My true glory.

As for the Campbell nonsense, it looks like both Goldman and Spengler (assuming they are different people) just copied this out of wikipedia.

Either that or Spengler and/or Goldman contributed that tidbit to wikipedia.

Anyways, I am compiling some of the various information I have found on Spengler's identity into a single file. I don't plan to post it on the internet, but if anyone wants a copy email me. This is a give a little take a little sort of game, so please come with some information.

Can I please join your club? Pretty please? BTW, how are we to know if we are "coming" with info you don't already have unless you share it first?

Boy-n-toyee,

Look, don't be fresh with me. Email me, tell me what you've got. I'll tell you what I have. Let me tell you, if all I you have is random crap you got from googling "Goldman" and "Sax" I already have it. If you think Spengler is Rushdie or Kissinger you are seriously wasting my time. If you think that Spengler/Goldman wrote the wikipedia article himself because he is in love with Joseph Campbell I'd say you'd better tighten up your screws. If you'd rather not, I have some contacts among the Larouchies that could complete your transformation into a true nutjob.

Oh and you might want to give the G-d thing a rest. I heard He doesn't like his name being taken lightly. But then again, you might be just vain enough to do it.

By the way, I read your book. It sucks.

Chill, Charly. I'm open to persuasion on the matter. If you scroll up, you'll see that I originally speculated that "Spengler" was a German theology prof who had spent a long time in the U.S. and has since retired overseas. I still think that's a fair possibility. Nevertheless, of all the candidates proposed so far, I now think Goldman is the most likely. But if you find the name of that German prof you're talking about and you post some of his stuff, and if it's a closer match to "Spengler", I might come around to your view.

I doubt very much, though, that our Spengy is a former top-level KGB agent or top-level CIA analyst and Reagan advisor. His thinking is way too fanciful for anyone of that soberminded background. (I'm still waiting for Putin's tanks to roll into Baghdad.)

And anyone who thinks Spengy is Kissinger or Rushdie is being ridiculous.

Sorry you didn't like my book. :(

BTW, I take it then that you're not voting for LL in '08?

Charlemagne, Goldman's remarks about Campbell were published in 1999, that is, years before Wikipedia even existed. However, it appears that Campbell's colleagues' criticisms of him were common knowledge, so the identity of Goldman's and Spengler's opinions on Campbell is not conclusive evidence of them being the same person.

Some more info on Goldman:

I was unable to confirm the claim that he is a music professor. A David P. Goldman is a board member and a major donor at the Mannes Classical Music Conservatory in NYC, though (http://tinyurl.com/2xaqf3).

LaRouche says that Goldman studied at the London School of Economics, which could mean that he is originally British. According to a Swedish article (http://tinyurl.com/2dn4xe) about ex-LaRouchies, Goldman is an investment banker and works for Bank of America Securities. He is also active in Jewish organizations like B'nai Brith. Moreover, the article says that he's a competent theologian and a talented musician. The information in the article seems to derive from a German book called Verirrt - Mein Leben in einer radikalen Politorganisation by Angalla Beyes-Coralis. If some German is reading this, could you try digging the book up?

Goldman donated to the Bush/Cheney campaign in 2004 (http://tinyurl.com/2hnb2y).

I doubt that Spengler is a native German speaker. I remember him making some spelling mistakes in his German that are typical of native English speakers. For example, once or twice he spelled "ie" as "ei", just like English speakers tend to do (e.g. Speilberg for Spielberg), but native Germans probably wouldn't.

I still think Spengler is Goldman.

Well I tried using an online translator to get part of that very interesting Swedish article and this is what I got:

"Goldman each LaRouche close coworker wonder many year and Goldman groin several central economic equipment within emotion. To difference from LaRouches speech and equipment each these restructured and comprehensible. Several of LaRouche coworker had wherein very clever and clerical error for övrigt interesting equipment , which is a explanation to whys organisation weather wonder so long term. Goldman is a substantial " defector " as is today investmentbankir and manager for " global Field Group Research joke Bank perceive America Securities ", a of finansoligarkins " hilt in the world. He am typing equable in finanstidningen Forbes and active within the jewish emotion , bl.a. B'nai Bunk. He is nots only a efficient teolog , devoid also a acknowledged skilful musicians. This have got LaRouche in that ovannämnda item assail him very elbow grease and uttryckssättet is signifikant for LaRouche in bekämpandet of sina meningsmotståndare"

Although I learned that Bank of America is a joke bank and that Larouchies like elbow grease, I'm not sure if this moves us closer or farther away from the Goldman hypothesis.

I also would be interested in learning more about this Angalla Beyes-Coralis book.

I suppose my concern was largely that this discussion was being taken over by Larouchies. Thanks Toynbee for clearing the air. I'm still not sure if Chmara is a Larouchie or not, but I'm hoping not (though citing Larouche as an expert on anything is suspect).

I would prefer to take this discussion offline for the simple reason that if we do manage to identify Spengler, I'd prefer he not get axed by angry Muslims. He might be relatively safe if is in America, but fatwas are known to get around and Spengles has been anything but nice to the Muslims.

I also just received an email about an interesting independent scholar by the name of Farrenkopf. Familiar to anyone?

Uh, no, I am definitely NOT a LaRouchite. Perish the thought. In fact, I was ready to dismiss David P. Goldman as a candidate because of his connection to Loony Lyndon, until Victor pointed out that, according to LL, Goldman had turned neocon and therefore been excommunicated from LL's good graces. Still, it makes you wonder why the devoutly Jewish Mr. Goldman would ever have been attracted to such an obvious anti-Semite as LL. Are there possibly two David P. Goldmans at large?

>>I was unable to confirm the claim that he is a music professor.>I also just received an email about an interesting independent scholar by the name of Farrenkopf. Familiar to anyone?

Hmm. Don't know why the last half of my post got chopped off. To continue...

"I was unable to confirm the claim that he is a music professor."

Goldman's bio at J-C Relations says that he "taught history of music theory at the Mannes College of Music in New York City, and music appreciation at Queens College of New York", but he isn't listed among the current faculty at either institution.

http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=1458

"I also just received an email about an interesting independent scholar by the name of Farrenkopf. Familiar to anyone?"

John Farrenkopf? Author of "Prophet of Decline"? Dunno. They both have crisp prose styles. But Farrenkopf seems to be a fan of old Oswald, whereas I had always assumed that our Spengy's pseudonym was meant to be somewhat ironic (like mine).

Although it seems highly unlikely that our Spengy would belong to the Carnegie Council, as John Farrenkopf does:

http://www.cceia.org/people/ data...farrenkopf.html

Heh, I'm definitely not a LaRouchite, either.

Toyboy asked: Still, it makes you wonder why the devoutly Jewish Mr. Goldman would ever have been attracted to such an obvious anti-Semite as LL. Are there possibly two David P. Goldmans at large?

The Swedish article I linked to earlier is on what I understand to be a moderately leftist, generally trustworthy site. The article makes it clear that Goldman was a LaRouchite and is "now" (2004) an investment banker, theologian, musician, and a columnist for Forbes. I don't believe there are several people named David P. Goldman who fit the description.

I don't think it's implausible that Goldman/Spengler would have been in the LaRouche movement. Perhaps he wasn't religious earlier. Clearly, neither Goldman nor Spengler are Orthodox Jews, either. As far as I know LaRouche and his followers started out as run-of-the-mill leftist radicals in the 1960s and 70s, and lots of Jews were involved back then.

I have just received some more interesting suggestions via email, including the mention of a French scholar of Rosenzweig by the name of Jean-Luc Evard. While I am skeptical that Spengler could be French, I am also surprised that there are any French Rosenzweig scholars.

I also received a copy of one of the deleted 'Who is Spengler?' threads that populated the old forum. It also contains some interesting speculations, although I have not yet had time to compile and review them carefully.

The article makes it clear that Goldman was a LaRouchite and is "now" (2004) an investment banker, theologian, musician, and a columnist for Forbes. I don't believe there are several people named David P. Goldman who fit the description.

Agreed. If the article is accurate, then it's almost certainly the same guy.

Clearly, neither Goldman nor Spengler are Orthodox Jews, either. As far as I know LaRouche and his followers started out as run-of-the-mill leftist radicals in the 1960s and 70s, and lots of Jews were involved back then.

I remember even back in '76 that LaRouche seemed just a tad anti-Semitic, although he's definitely gotten worse over the years. His anti-Semitism was always more political than religious: He distrusted secular as well as religious Jews.

But I guess Goldman wouldn't be the first Jew to have joined an anti-Semitic organization.

(Also, Goldman belongs to the Park Avenue Synagogue, which is Conservative.)

I have just received some more interesting suggestions via email, including the mention of a French scholar of Rosenzweig by the name of Jean-Luc Evard. While I am skeptical that Spengler could be French, I am also surprised that there are any French Rosenzweig scholars.

That is interesting. I, too, am skeptical that Spengler would be French. But then, I would never have figured him for a former LaRouchite either.

But-
he is certainly NOT V.S. Naipaul....

Interesting. V.S. Naipaul was one of the names that came up in the thread I mentioned.

I read his column today wondering if Rozenweig would come up. "Not this time," I thought. And then, there he was, right at the end.

Spengler is Joseph Ratzinger.

Huh. Who knew Ratzinger was a South Park fan?

Everybody forgot Spengler reads spanish?

I think there is a good chance Spengler is Peter Berger the sociologist. I think the way he views and talks about religion is the give away, along with a very similary writing style. Check out Bergers book "Questions of Faith: A Skeptical Affirmation of Christianity, (2003)" A book all about reconciling traditional values with modern choice.

i think toynbee on this thread is spengler

sowing misinformation...

Curses! My nefarious plan has been exposed by "john zak" (a.k.a. David P. Goldman).

I have this weird feeling he is from North-Western Europe, and possibly dutch. He might have a Central European connection, but he seems to write of communism and Russia from the vantage point of an outsider. I also do not believe he has lived in the Middle East.

He does however has extensive knowlegde of thinkers from France and Germany, plus a deep knowledge of Europe’s religious wars. Western Europe is also his primary interest. Furthermore his style is too straightforward and linear to be latin or slavic. He also lacks the humour and self deprication I associate with Britain, though this could be a red herring.

I'm voting for A.J. Wolf simply because I know him personally and it's just the sort of thing he would do, being naturally contrarian.

I'm voting for A.J. Wolf simply because I know him personally and it's just the sort of thing he would do, being naturally contrarian.


Contrarian? More like schizophrenic, if he really is "Spengler":

http://www.kibush.co.il/show_fil...e.asp? num=16207
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10118

And a liar for saying he doesn't read German (or a liar for suggesting he does).

No, I still say that "Spengler" is really Pat Buchanan's German-Jewish cousin, Shlomo Fitzpatrick.


He also lacks the humour and self deprecation I associate with Britain, though this could be a red herring.

His strained attempts at humour and his self-seriousness mark him as either American or German. Or both.

One thing's for sure, though: He's never been to Japan and knows about the place only via third-hand cliches taken from old tourist-office brochures. That "Cherry Blossom" column from the other week is a dead giveaway on that matter.

I do not believe that the Spengler persona is one person. I do believe that the persona is supposed to present itself in a multifaceted in order to appeal to groups or types of people normally not in agreement about lots(most?) of things.

I do not believe that the Spengler persona is one person. I do believe that the persona is supposed to present itself in a multifaceted in order to appeal to groups or types of people normally not in agreement about lots(most?) of things.

By George, I think you've got it! "Spengler" is actually a fantistically clever software program designed to synthesize various incompatible socio-political viewpoints into a superficially plausible and (barely) coherent argument, which it then prints out in a more or less consistent, distinctive "style" that has a more or less human-sounding "tone". The Turing Test has finally been passed!

Now, who could possibly be the mad genius behind this brilliant software program? Anyone care to hazard a guess?

Who said anything about software? If you have ever worked in academics, you know that almost all academic papers are written by more than one person, and published with a style given to the document by the editorial "head" (as it were).

BTW-- same same for news publishing

Who said anything about software? If you have ever worked in academics, you know that almost all academic papers are written by more than one person, and published with a style given to the document by the editorial "head" (as it were).

Clearly you haven't worked in academics lately. It's all done by software now:

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo

Your teasing me. You can not really be so thick as to believe that software can, with volition, write a document!

You're teasing me.

But I never.

You cannot really be so thick as to believe that software can, with volition, write a document!

Thick as a brick--and twice as hard.

O ye of little faith! Thou hast seen the Postmodern Essay Generator and yet thou hast not believed. Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed.

Congratulations, you exemplify trolldom in you're provocative thuggery. Fortunately, you are clearly not very bright.

I'd say that anyone who can't distinguish between your and you're (or consistently inverts to the two, as you do) shouldn't cast aspersions on others' intelligence.

But on to more pressing matters: What on earth makes you think that Spengler's column is written by commitee? Your (not you're) evidence, please?

Notyeeb
Neetboy
Yobteen
Noybeet

How many names do you have?
If one can be many, many can be one.
Done.

How many names do you have?
If one can be many, many can be one.

It's called anagram. Look it up.

Seriously: Don't dodge the question. You claim that Spengler's columns are composed by committee. Where's your evidence for this bizarre claim?

Looks like Goldman is still the only plausible candidate. I'd love to have some more information on his background.

Spengler is deeply committed to German language and literature which is uncommon for an English speaking intellectual today -- especially as he doesn't seem to be that interested in English literature, aside from Tolkien.

This could mean that his parents were German speaking immigrants/refugees to Britain/America, and his home language might have been German. For a Jew of his generation this is not unlikely.

Toynbee
is he this guy?
victor chmara (a.k.a. victor chimera)
Boyntee
Yobneet
Teenboy
Beetnoy
Beentoy
Noybeet
Yobteen
Neetboy
Notyeeb
Boyteen

I know what an anagram is. They can also be called a pseudonym, as well as a proper name, , pronoun, and word. In this case I did not see the need to list all of the definitions of the words I listed.

As far as I can tell, all of the listed skins above are the same person. This person appears to have it really hard for David P. Goldman.

As for evidence, it appears to me that some variation on "sounds like" is good enough for this forum. Kind of like charades. Let me know if this type of evidence would be sufficient.

Wrong about Victor, Doc "Logic". The others are anagrams of Toynbee--because his name lends itself to many anagrams and it amuses me. Honestly, if I were trying to fool you with sockpuppets, why would I use something so transparent as anagrams of the same name? That's what I love about you, doc: You're (not your) so literal-minded.

Just present some kind of evidence for your claim about multiple authorship of Spengler's columns. That's all I ask.

I think there is a good chance Spengler is Peter Berger the sociologist. I think the way he views and talks about religion is the give away, along with a very similary writing style. Check out Bergers book "Questions of Faith: A Skeptical Affirmation of Christianity, (2003)" A book all about reconciling traditional values with modern choice.

- cstringer

Interesting suggestion, but I don't quite see it. At the library the other day I pulled four of Berger's books off the shelves: Many Globalizations (2002), A Future for South Africa (1988), Pyramids of Sacrifice (1974), and Movement and Revolution (1970). In none of these books did I find any mention at all of Spengler's two pet obsessions: Franz Rosenzweig and classical music. There were several rather neutral references to contemporary pop music and Islam--two of Spengler's betes noires. Berger is also critical of China's post-Mao leadership and skeptical about China's potential for reform, while Spengler tends to be vaguely sycophantic towards current Chinese leaders. Berger has mixed feelings about capitalism and is skeptical of the social value of economic growth, while Spengler is a gung-ho capitalist. Finally, Berger warns us that we must "learn to reject the temptation to impose neat schemes on" the "messiness of history", while Spengler is all about imposing neat Rosenzweigian schemes on everything.

Unfortunately, Questions of Faith was checked out, so I didn't have a chance to compare it with Spengler's columns. What about it particularly struck you as being like Spengler's columns? Can you quote any specific passages?

If you really wanted to discuss the issue with me, perhaps you could try not acting like an insufferable asshole.

Fair enough. Make an argument and back it up with something and I promise not to snark.

Doclogic could be right. Some newspapers rotate different people through the job to write an anonymous column. Among English-language newspapers that I read, "The Economist" rotates the writers of its > > and > columns.

The earliest > articles were about the Internet and expressed hate against capitalism. No later articles that I read were about that subject or expressed that sentiment. Early > articles warned that Islam could win a war against the West. Later articles argued that Islam is in a crisis of faith and population, without hope of winning. If there are more changes like these, the column could be a rotated job.

This page ate my words inside quotation brackets. I wanted to write:

"The Economist" rotates the writers of its "Charlemagne," "Lexington" and "Buttonwood" columns.

The earliest "Spengler" articles were about the Internet ... Early "Spengler" articles warned ...

The earliest [Spengler] articles were about the Internet and expressed hate against capitalism. No later articles that I read were about that subject or expressed that sentiment. Early [Spengler] articles warned that Islam could win a war against the West. Later articles argued that Islam is in a crisis of faith and population, without hope of winning. If there are more changes like these, the column could be a rotated job.

Actually, the early Spengler columns about internet stocks are exactly the sort of thing David P. Goldman would have written about. It's too bad the Goldman columns for Forbes have now disappeared behind a subscribers-only wall, because there's some similarity, in both attitude and style, between these early Spengler pronouncements and a couple of Goldman's columns about "bubbles" and ballsy investing.

Far from being anti-capitalist, the early Spengler actually sings the praises of the boom-bust cycle of unfettered capitalism as an invigorating "cold shower" that prevents the public from growing soft and lazy: see his "Singing in the (cold) shower" column of July 23, 2002.

Spengler's "Radical Islam Could Win" column was written one month after 9/11 and is obviously an attempt to persuade the public to back a full-scale invasion not only of Afghanistan, but of the Middle East as well. The later, Muslims-are-on-the-ropes columns were written after public opinion had turned against any further adventures in the region. ("C'mon, guys, it'll be easy. We've got 'em on the ropes. Don't chicken out now.")

Lastly, there's been a consistent set of rather quirky obsessions throughout the history of Spengler's columns. Take, for instance, J. R. R. Tolkien, who seems to be the only English-language writer Spengler has ever read: Spengler sings his fulsome praises as early as January 11, 2003...and four years later he is still banging on about him. It would be rather odd if all the "rotating writers" of a "group" column had the same hobby horses.

As far as I can tell, what you mean by evidence are near perfect matches found in the work of Spengler from ATimes and the work of others. I would add to that what I call a line of reasoning, how I get from one point to another.

I guess we are playing "sounds like", and Spengler sounds like a "what" more than a "who". Spengler sounds like a cross between National Review, Commentary, Foreign Affairs, and any number of periodicals concerning history, as well as book review material included within, books recomended by the periodicals mentioned, and books written by authors of essays included within said periodicals (lots of crossover occurs).

The largest circulation is likely Foreign Affairs, smallest would be one of the history journals. Going with the known (taking leeway) of 27,000 circulation of Commentary, this would narrow the total possible crossover readership list to lower than 27,000 (max).

The reason I consider this important is that anyone who has read most of the above list of material over the last 30 years (not as hard as it may sound at 2 or 3 mags a month and 1 or 2 books a week) could write the stuff Spengler has written. However, the list of persons would still be quite extensive.

If I had to list individuals that Spengler sounds like, I could say Roger Kimball, or Jared Diamond, as well as Victor Davis Hanson. Spengler has also read, and sounds like, Strauss and Burnham. Dialectical logic is his stock in trade, giving us Hegel. He is very familiar with the exegetical methods used by Rabinical scholars, yet in the essay published 01May07 god is written with a lower case "g" in reference to the "god of the Bible".

Spengeler rarely makes use of citations. Academics would never do this for an academic publication, but the style is common in periodicals by authors that do not have a recognized speciality. Spengler, a pseudonym, does not have a recognized speciality, but does appear to have been chosen to communicate an overall world view in kinship with the original.

In non-academic journals and government publications, it is quite common to find one author listed on included essays that would cover such disparate subject matter as war, art, or economics. However, it would be rare to find this all in one article, as we do with Spengler, without citation.

If we look at the Spengler essay published in ATimes we find a reference to persons that are expert on one narrow area, but ignorant in all others. I have found this to be generally the case, with VERY FEW exceptions. Most educated people know a lot about a very narrow subject area, say Ancient Greece, but will know very little about, say, songs sung by Confederate solders in the US war of Northern Aggression (Civil War).

Into Falken's Maze we go.

If I review the first few essays published in ATimes by Spengler, I find a very interesting reference on 04Jan01.

Confederate soldiers had no illusions about the purpose of the war. "We are a band of brothers/Native to the soil/Fighting for the property/We gained by honest toil," they sang of their African slaves in the South's most popular marching song.


I then search the internet, shazam, I find another use of this reference on 10Feb04 by Spengler. In this article Professor Robert E May is mentioned. Later that year, shazam, Professor May published a book. Now, in my experience, this is not an accident, but more likely the result of Prof. May and Spengler reading the same reference material. Very obscure reference material.

More to follow. I have other things to do.

As far as I can tell, what you mean by evidence are near perfect matches found in the work of Spengler from ATimes and the work of others...I guess we are playing "sounds like"

Similarity of style, content, interests, and references will do. If you have any inside dope that you can back up with concrete evidence, that would be nice, too. Just gimme what you got.

Spengler sounds like a cross between National Review, Commentary, Foreign Affairs...

Spengler sounds like someone who's read National Review, Commentary, and Foreign Affairs and agrees with about half of what's in those periodicals and scoffs at the other half.

If I had to list individuals that Spengler sounds like, I could say Roger Kimball, or Jared Diamond, as well as Victor Davis Hanson.

Kimball is a distinct possibility, Hanson rather less so, but if Diamond is Spengler, I'll eat my hat.

Spengler has also read, and sounds like, Strauss and Burnham.

He has definitely read them, but he disagrees with them on several key issues and doesn't particularly sound like either of them. And yes, I'm sure he's read Hegel, too, as have millions of other college students.

He is very familiar with the exegetical methods used by Rabinical scholars, yet in the essay published 01May07 god is written with a lower case "g" in reference to the "god of the Bible".

That's actually an interesting point, although the lower-case "g" could be merely a typo (as I suspect it is, since "God" is capitalized everywhere else in that column, along with an upper-case "Creator"). But, yeah, I agree with you about Spengy's familiarity with "the exegetical methods of rabbinical scholars".

Spengeler rarely makes use of citations.

Why would he? It's a newspaper column, not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

Spengler, a pseudonym, does not have a recognized speciality, but does appear to have been chosen to communicate an overall world view in kinship with the original.

It's an opinion column, in which the writer is expected to expound on current events while spicing it up with random tidbits and quaint references. And yes, having a quirky world-view adds zip to your column. That's probably why "Spengler" was hired: he has a "colorful" world-view that doesn't clash too discordantly with that of the editors of the Asia Times, plus a grab-bag sensibility and a crisp, engaging style--perfect for a newspaper columnist.

In non-academic journals and government publications, it is quite common to find one author listed on included essays that would cover such disparate subject matter as war, art, or economics.

Yeah, yeah, I know: Time magazine articles (but not its essay columns) are actually "researched" and "written" by several people, even if they appear under one by-line. And ditto government papers. But group-written articles tend to be somewhat bland in style and boringly consensus-driven. Spengler's columns, on the other hand, are anything but bland and consensus-driven.

Most educated people know a lot about a very narrow subject area, say Ancient Greece, but will know very little about, say, songs sung by Confederate solders in the US war of Northern Aggression (Civil War).

So this is the crux of your argument? That one man couldn't possibly master more than one subject? That one person couldn't possibly have wide-ranging interests and exhibit some knowledgeable familiarity with his interests? If that's the case, then I must be at least five different people, what with my interest in and familiarity with classical music, Japanese cinema, French cuisine, bicycle racing, and Gothic architecture. I've even read a few books on the American Civil War. Hey, I could be Spengler!

By the way, it's interesting that you refer to the Civil War as the "war of Northern Aggression". Are you a Confederate sympathizer?

And just for your information: "The Bonnie Blue Flag" is a well-known song and is mentioned in numerous histories of the Civil War, as well as in Ken Burns's popular television miniseries about the Civil War:

www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Traditional-Instrumental- Soundtrack/dp/B000005J0O

What I see when I read Spengler is someone who has a Rosenzweig fetish, loves classical music and knows a great deal about it, reads (or claims to read) German literature in the original, is quite familiar with American pop culture but seems to have no interest in (or knowledge of) American literature, has a hard-on for hobbits, gets his information about Japan from newspapers and tourist brochures, and thinks the Federal Reserve is for wimps. That's way too quirky to be the product of committee composition.

After reading your response to what I had written, I was unable to tell if you were writing nutty things because you either had not read what I had written, or did not comprehend what I had written. Another choice I had was that maybe you were trying to piss me off for kicks.

I then showed what I had written (from my initial statement onward) to a psychologist with 15 years clinical experience. After reading the comments you have made to what I have written, I was asked if I thought you might be Spengler just playing with me. I indicated that others had wondered the same thing.

BTW --- the psyc I asked has read none of Spengler's work.

I then showed what I had written (from my initial statement onward) to a psychologist with 15 years clinical experience.

Sure you did. Sure you did.

After reading the comments you have made to what I have written, I was asked if I thought you might be Spengler just playing with me. I indicated that others had wondered the same thing.

So now I'm Spengler, eh? I thought Spengler was supposed to be some sort of brain trust? Wouldn't this alleged consortium of big thinkers have better things to do than fuck with some random dope on an obscure internet site?

As I expected, you did not respond to what I actually wrote. I did not say that you are Spengler, I only said that I had been asked if I thought you are Spengler. I never wrote that the pseudonym Spengler was a brain trust. I never wrote about a consortium of big thinkers. I have only said that I do not believe that the Spengler persona is one person. You need to stop listening to the straw man whispering in your ear.

Maybe you need to cut back on the caffeine.

I only said that I had been asked if I thought you are Spengler.

Oh, I see: in other words, your therapist asked if you might be paranoid.

Seriously, if all you're suggesting is that the guy who writes Spengler's column might be trying in a very calculated way to appeal to a very heterogeneous audience by mixing and matching various not-usually-compatible ideologies, and that the guy behind the columns doesn't really believe everything he writes, then I'd say sure it's possible. But I doubt it. And there is nevertheless someone behind those columns and I still say he still sounds an awful lot like the guy named David P. Goldman who writes about music, investment strategies, and Franz Rosenzweig's theology. Or do you think some nasty anonymous academic is doing a frame-up of poor innocent David P. Goldman? If so, you should listen to your therapist and get some help for that budding paranoia.

I do not believe you know how to be serious. Derision appears to be the only tool you are comfortable using.

Derision appears to be the only tool you are comfortable using.

Appearances can be deceiving.

If "if's" and "but's" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

State your thesis fully, clearly, and precisely.

Make a coherent, intelligent argument supporting your thesis.

Take your time. Do it right.

Then I'll take you seriously.

Ludacris and 36 Mafia perform Wagner's "Der Ring des Nibelungen", film at 11:00.

Sounds like something Spengler would say.

One word, backmasking.

i read the 2 goldberg pieces and i think its him, i am not sure what the person above is trying to say, more than one spengler ??

i read the 2 goldberg pieces and i think its him

Goldman, not Goldberg.

i am not sure what the person above is trying to say, more than one spengler ??

- dmcnulty

Who? Doclogic? As far as I can tell, doclogic is trying to say something like the following:

"A bunch of guys collaborate on writing Spengler's columns. Whoever these guys are, they're hiding behind a carefully constructed persona designed to appeal to the widest possible (conservative) readership by cobbling together disparate (conservative) viewpoints. Since this carefully constructed persona is both a group effort and a cynical marketing gimmick, Spengler's columns will not sound anything like what these guys might have published individually under their real names. So if Spengler sounds a lot like an obscure financial columnist named David P. Goldman, then that just proves that Spengler isn't an obscure financial columnist named David P. Goldman."

Unfortunately, doclogic is such a laughably incompetent writer that it's anybody's guess what he's trying to say. I wonder if even doclogic himself knows what the hell he's trying to say.

Unfortunately, is such a laughably incompetent reader he thinks I have written the words:

"A bunch of guys collaborate on writing Spengler's columns. Whoever these guys are, they're hiding behind a carefully constructed persona designed to appeal to the widest possible (conservative) readership by cobbling together disparate (conservative) viewpoints. Since this carefully constructed persona is both a group effort and a cynical marketing gimmick, Spengler's columns will not sound anything like what these guys might have published individually under their real names. So if Spengler sounds a lot like an obscure financial columnist named David P. Goldman, then that just proves that Spengler isn't an obscure financial columnist named David P. Goldman."


What I actually wrote was "I do not believe that the Spengler persona is one person. I do believe that the persona is supposed to present itself in a multifaceted (manner) in order to appeal to groups or types of people normally not in agreement about lots(most?) of things."

I have never used the words conservative, carefully constructed, bunch of guys, group effort, cynical, or marketing gimmick.

Noybeet assumes that there is only one person writing the articles in question, that the person will have published articles somewhere in the past, and that the articles will be in the public domain, available to "match" against the Spengler sample. I do not assume only one person is involved, I do not assume that there will be an available sample against which we may find content or style matches.

Noybeet wishes to make the discussion about me. If you look at my first post, and the reply to that post by Noybeet, you will see that Noybeet has a habit replying to things no one said. Instead of asking for clarification on some point, Noybeet will posit a straw man, then attack that straw man. If you do not know what a straw man is, look it up.

Noybeet has a style of argument that makes it impossible to discuss such a topic easily. When I wrote that I believe the Spengler persona is not one person, I did not say "bunch" because I do not know how many, I only know that I do not believe this to be the work of one man. In fact, as far as I am concerned, Spengler is an object, not a person.

Noybeet does not appear to be aware that essay columns may be written in pieces by more than one person, then edited together by the "byline". Most, if not all, of what is published in any news paper is the product of multiple writers. Most people outside of the publishing industry are unaware of how prevalent this practice is. If you ask a journalism expert, they will tell you that the byline on most articles and essays are more like an editor than anything else. This drives most writers crazy, because what ends up in the final edition will often not resemble what they actually wrote.

Noybeet does not appear to be aware that essay columns may be written in pieces by more than one person, then edited together by the "byline".

Actually, most essay columns are written by one person, although they may be edited to fit the limited space of a newspaper op-ed column (so some of the writer's golden words may be left out by the squeeze). Now,newspaper and magazine articles often have more than one writer (usually a couple of researchers and one person who writes up the researchers' findings), but Spengler doesn't write news articles. He writes rather distinctive, not to say quirky, opinion/analytical columns.

Opinion editorials, or essay columns, as you call them, are published under one byline, but not necessarly written by one person. Most people are under this naive assumption. I am not.

The product will be edited for grammer, punctuation, spelling, length, and fact checked. Other alterations of all types are made to all columns. The final published product is often not known by the byline until they see it along with everyone else.

Opinion editorials, or essay columns, as you call them, are published under one byline, but not necessarily written by one person. Most people are under this naive assumption. I am not.

The product will be edited for grammar, punctuation, spelling, length, and fact checked. Other alterations of all types are made to all columns.The final published product is often not known by the byline until they see it along with everyone else.

I would be willing to wager a small sum to the effect that if a contest were held, with the object being to submit a column in the same overall style as Spengler, several writers could be found with the ability to converse in a winning style.

We would need rules, of course. What do you say?

Opinion editorials, or essay columns, as you call them

Actually, there's a difference between an opinion editorial (which supposedly represents the newspaper's official position on a particular issue) and an essay column in which the writer speaks only for himself or herself (although most newspapers won't usually hire someone whose politics clash too much with those of the owners and editors).

As for editors taking away a star columnist's essay and rewriting it till it's unrecognizable: I doubt very much that Michael Kinsley or Roger Rosenblatt or Dave Barry, for instance, have their little essays mucked with too much. No writer with any integrity would put up with that for very long, especially if he or she is well-established and has a big following.

Once upon a time, I interned at a major metropolitan newspaper for several months, and while a news article was sometimes the product of two or three different writers, the local columnists always wrote their own stuff, which was edited only for length, not content. (Once, just once, I recall, the editor forced a columnist to change something he thought was libelous. There was a pretty big row over it. Otherwise, though, it was just a matter of cutting a few words here or there to squeeze the essay into its alloted space.)

I would be willing to wager a small sum to the effect that if a contest were held, with the object being to submit a column in the same overall style as Spengler, several writers could be found with the ability to converse in a winning style.

I don't doubt that a skillful writer could do a fair impersonation of Spengler, but that wouldn't prove anything about the actual composition of Spengler's columns. I know from my experience at a newspaper that columnists, especially star columnists noted for their quirky viewpoints, write their own stuff. There's no compelling reason to think that "Spengler" doesn't write his own columns and or that he doesn't believe what he writes.

But if you want to try to write a column in Spengler style, be my guest. I'm sure it'll be quite amusing.

Op-ed means opposite editorial, as in opposite the editorial page.

There is no difference between an opinion editorial and an essay editorial. The opinion of the editorial board is expressed on the editorial page, these are called editorials. On the page opposite to the editorial page are printed opinions expressed by the writer of said article (or essay, if you like).

It may be the case at the one small hometown newspaper that the local columnist became angry over changes made to an article they had written. Big deal. From that experience you had, it does not follow, necessarily, that little or no changes are made to opinion editorial pieces like the one published under the Spengler byline. As I wrote earlier, opinion editorials, or essay columns, as you identified them earlier, are published under one byline, but not necessarily written by one person. Most people are under this naive assumption. I am not.

In further news, Elvis did not write all of the music and lyrics, nor choreograph all of the shows he performed. Ronald McDonald did not cook all of the burgers served in McDonalds, and it does not necessarily follow that Dave Berry, or Spengler for that matter, wrote all of the material published under the byline of Dave Berry or Spengler.

Much like a wall, or a car, many persons contribute to the manufacture of the product, but there may be only one, or multiple owners of that product. This holds true for the byline Spengler, which is also a product. The product Spengler may belong to one or more persons, or to a business entity, and may also be manufactured by one or more persons.


Just like you:
Toynbee
Beteyon
Ebeyton
Beytone
Etonbey
Teenybo
Beentoy
Toybeen
Neetboy
Boneyet
Boteeny
Beetony
Boyteen
Notyeeb
Yobteen
Teenboy
Beetnoy
Boyntee
Yobneet
Noybeet


one person can be use many names, and many people, can use one name and produce products under that name.

My guess? 'Spengler' is Thomas Pynchon's alter ego.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

example

http://metaphorical.wordpress.co...rselfliterally/

another example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben...ki/ Ben_Domenech

It may be the case at the one small hometown newspaper that the local columnist became angry over changes made to an article they had written.

Major metropolitan newspaper. Well-known columnist. Point was that the column was written by one person and published under his own by-line and the content was never changed except under one very special circumstance.

Most people are under this naive assumption. I am not.

Because you are wise beyond all men and have the eyes of God. If I could but touch the hem of your garment, I would be healed.

In further news, Elvis did not write all of the music and lyrics, nor choreograph all of the shows he performed. Ronald McDonald did not cook all of the burgers served in McDonalds

Cute but irrelevant.

it does not necessarily follow that Dave Berry, or Spengler for that matter, wrote all of the material published under the byline of Dave Berry or Spengler.

Actually, Dave Barry does write his own columns and books. Works very hard at it, too. Won a Pulitzer Prize, too.

Just like you...one person can be use many names, and many people, can use one name and produce products under that name.

Yes, indubitably. Because I post here under anagrams of Toynbee for my own amusement that proves that Spengler is actually more than one person. Your logic is unassailable, doc.

example:
http://metaphorical.wordpress.co...rselfliterally/

another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben...ki/ Ben_Domenech

So airhead Katie Couric farmed her name out to some anonymous hack writer who wrote bland unoriginal stuff for her and some blogger plagiarized somebody else. Big deal.

It's interesting that you cite Domenech's plagiarism as evidence for your argument. Are you suggesting that Spengler's a plagiarist? Who's he plagiarizing--David P. Goldman?

Keep 'em coming, doc. You're hilarious!

Toybeen, you may believe, if you wish, that because some columnist became upset over changes made to an article of local interest, prior to publication, that this somehow gives necessity to a claim of all columnist work will not be changed prior to publication. It is my understanding that within the publishing industry this is quite common, that is, columnist an