Why I refuse to debate inside a closed dialectical system — and why metaphysical realism is the only foundation for genuine human liberty
I read your latest epistle with the same sinking feeling one gets when watching a brilliant friend descend deeper into the very esoteric vortex he once swore to expose. What began as a philosophical disagreement now feels like a full-blown ideological purge.
You keep demanding a “friendly debate” while simultaneously publishing public denunciations that read like a Stalin-era show-trial transcript: I am sloppy, prideful, unread, hypocritical. You then express theatrical shock that I didn’t privately clear my essays with you before publishing. First, I made it clear to you privately, and to others publicly, that I wrote the original article as a response to many who had asked my thoughts on LaRouche. I wish I could answer everyone properly, but I’m completely unfunded and my days are stretched beyond thin. The paid subscriptions I do have (and I’m endlessly grateful for every single one) only just keep the podcast breathing; they don’t come close to freeing up real time or covering living expenses. So I poured my thoughts into one longer reply, and archived it on Substack for future reference. Your patience and support mean the world. Second, Matt, that as you full well know, is not how independent scholarship works. That is how cults work.
Let us be crystalline about what actually happened:
