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, nor does it 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. Additionally, you are connected to Counterfire, with its website and editorial team. Moreover, AI tools are accessible to 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*, *Imperialism*, 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.
It’s ironic that 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 the level at which 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.
A Trumpet of Sedition 