Dimitri noticed my meandering about Griffith, and comments that he reads Griffith as he would a fellow blogger or essayist - presumably for unique viewpoint rather than strict scholarship? I suppose that could work, but I had seen Griffith cited as a specialist, not an advocate. Ironically enough, Jamieson & McWhiney, who *are* cited as advocates for Attack and Die, are somewhat more restrained in their rhetoric, laying aside that book's last third-worth of peculiar racial theorizing.
I suppose I'm saying that I didn't expect Griffith to come across as this much of an... autodidactic crank. Eh, maybe it's the exaggeration of unmet expectations at work.