It was pretty good. Definitely well written, as he leaves basically no room for misunderstanding of his words or point. But it also limits itself very much. I suppose there's a time and place for that type of paper but it strikes me as extremely analytic and myopic which is kind of ironic considering the subject matter. I also just disagree with some of his points, for instance his disdain for teleological views of history and civilization, but I can't really fault him too much for that.