But you being dismissed is rational because you don't say anything. Also, you're not a real "intellectual" so dismissing you or shitting on you isn't "anti-intellectualism".
>Contains clear structured arguments
No, it's a large meta-narrative which implies a vague assertion. Your second paragraph explains what is obviously implied by your writing, you're just assuming I didn't understand that message.
>My writing style is based on Caroll Quigley. His literary collection was bringing up different topics in a fleeting way to demonstrate his points.
Caroll Quigley's writing style sucks. He eschews data and details just to "bring up points", a flaw endemic to human argumentative writing. Pick one narrow topic at a time so that you can actually substantiate things with data. That is actually good writing.
>You first complain my post is too long and then claim I don't delve into the topics enough.
These things are not contradictory. In fact, they go hand in hand. By "too long" I should have said it "brings up too many topics". If you do this, because of time and length limitations, you won't be able to actually argue anything with efficacy because you never bring real data or sources to the table.
>If you wish to confirm or fact-check my work.
Chug my shit. Either provide sources or GTFO, just like any other actually good scholar (REAL intellectuals) would do.
