The post you are reporting:
Thankfully the kind of history preferred by Anonymous of the Economist has a fading interest and popularity, kept alive mainly by MPs and their associates. Even Popper, no radical he, stuck the knife into political history's claim on 'history'. But the wider discipline, like any other, is subject to its own power tussles, and Anonymous is merely drawing on a few popular tropes (myopic academics, 'irrelevant' curricula etc.) to chuck in his tuppence worth. (I, though, would seriously question the judgment of anyone who holds Hugh 'those diaries are the real thing, I tell you' Trevor-Roper up as a model historian.) I can't say I give a Fukuyama either, but I've been known to give a Foucault.