John, your recent responses to my work follow a frustratingly familiar pattern: rather than engaging with the arguments, you've resorted to personal insults. In several exchanges, you've called me “moronic” three times, “lazy,” and “stupid.” This isn't debate, and it doesn't address the substance of my critique. It's merely evasion disguised as argument.
What makes this especially revealing is the extensive array
of intellectual and technological resources at your disposal. You have almost
unlimited access to academic publications and archives. Your credentials
include a PhD from Goldsmiths, and you have an ongoing relationship with Verso,
including a book contract. You are also connected to Counterfire, including
its website and editorial team. Moreover, AI tools can help you
generate structured, well-argued responses within minutes. Essentially, you
have every possible resource to craft a serious, substantive reply.
Instead of addressing these points, you opt to send
dismissive tweets. You claim that the structural questions I raise are “a
straight lie” and "moronic," yet you refuse to provide any proof or
explanation. You vaguely reference your previous books, The Leveller
Revolution and The Algebra of Revolution, as if their
existence alone dismisses current criticism. However, this is not sufficient.
If your accusations are as unfounded as you say, the responsible response is to
demonstrate precisely where and how they are wrong. Such a process requires
reasoned argument, evidence, and genuine engagement, not insults.
Ironically, you recommended I “use AI to craft a better
reply,” since you have the same access. If you truly aimed to enhance the
discussion, you could do so immediately. Your choice to instead resort to
hurling abuse on Twitter reveals how you prefer to engage in
this exchange.
I have no interest in joining a Twitter war. Twitter isn't
suited for serious historical debates, and your usage proves that. If you truly
wish to engage, publish a proper reply on Counterfire, through Verso, or in any
academic forum you can access. Present your argument clearly. Tackle the
structural issues head-on. Show, with clarity and evidence, where you believe
my analysis is mistaken.
Until then, the contrast between your unlimited resources
and weak responses is clear. Your refusal to engage honestly, reliance on
personal attacks, and hiding behind authority rather than having a genuine
debate reveal your position's fragility, not confidence. I am no longer willing
to have a conversation with you and will not engage in the intellectual
equivalent of a quick, 280-character pub argument.
