Clearing the Air

Our Problems are Not the Same

D Booma San

told me ‘GO FUCK YOURSELF’ and that ‘I don’t want any of that shit’ when I asked him to retract a misleading statement made on his show about Roger Stone and what appeared to be unedited footage taken from the documentary made about him during the 2020 Presidential election and J6 2021 capitol riot: A Storm Foretold.

The Streamyard invitation above was an invitation to this show entitled ‘Beefing with Patrick Mockridge’, as if a failed negotiation whereby one party tells the other to literally ‘GO FUCK YOURSELF’ and the other says ‘OK I’m not interested’ is in any way some sort of violent escalation and in any way the fault of the party that decides to leave. Firstly I question how much experience Dorian has in any role or task with any degree of material responsibility, probably not much at all. The violent escalation from ‘GO FUCK YOURSELF’ to publicly smearing me is all entirely Dorian’s and has nothing to do with me. The ‘beef’ is entirely a figment of Dorian’s imagination, refusing a bad deal and cancelling an arrangement due to disagreement about risk is just normal adult interaction and entirely normal in any relationship whether business or personal.

On that show Dorian proceeds to give his version of events, without showing the full text history above, specifically the reason why I refused to appear at short notice, and, in true Roger Stone style, Dorian doubles down on ‘GO FUCK YOURSELF’ while also casting aspersions that somehow my comments make me some sort of CIA asset handler.

The real explanation is entirely more mundane, but entirely more constructive and useful in its description. Dorian and myself reached a fork in the road whereby as soon as the risk got big for me, following on from our last discussion and leading off with the recorded phone call, leaked by Matthew Tucciaroni, the drama and attention got big for him. By cussing me out publicly and commenting with respect to me that ‘He let a little praise go to his head and went apeshit with it’ and ignoring my basic demands in negotiation, by saying that ‘keeping it real’ means ‘it’s my show and I do what I want on my show’ Dorian shows that he is either unserious and incompetent, or that he has business incentives and motivations that differ from those exposing the facts and the truth in a very fundamentally problematic way. Just as it is unsafe to dive into muddy water, so it is unsafe to continue where I left off with Dorian given his attitude to aspersions cast upon a well recognized and respected documentary containing a primary antagonist in the Mike Gill saga, a fact that Mike Gill himself reaffirmed recently, Roger Stone.

The increased risk, as a result of this misinformation, is an increased cost that I incur primarily, whereas the chaos, confusion, drama and intrigue primarily benefits Dorian. Noticing that and being aware of that doesn’t make me the CIA, it just makes me a reasonable adult human being. What’s also starkly absent from Dorian’s critique of me is the absence of context of what we were actually talking about and making content about prior to our failed negotiation. Dorian mentions nothing of the relevance of Roger Stone to that content, and proceeds to say ‘Patrick’s just the same as Alvear’ who is also associated with Roger Stone, the CIA and the January 6 Capitol Riot. How can I be both trying to stick to the facts that Roger Stone would prefer not to be affirmed and be ‘the same as Alvear’? Only in the schizoid mind could that ever hold true. As soon as the stakes of negotiation reached a certain level it stopped being about the content for Dorian and started being all about him and his entirely imaginary and nonsensical Alice in Wodnerland ‘beef’ with me.

Just Roger Stone with the J6 Doobie Smoker who claimed to have worked in Special Operations with General Flynn and Boone Cutler, we’re all the same deep down

This is a problem faced for any whistleblower or anyone with a story to tell about material risks. The mechanisms of this in practice can be complex but the Romeo-Juliet framework that I developed boils them down in essence to a set of fundamentals. Several incongruent statements with respect to Dorian’s criticism of me can shed some light in this specific case:

• Dorian insinuates that I am some sort of intelligence handler and that ‘checking’ or ‘correcting’ behavior and potentially misleading information and asking more about Dorian’s background following our disagreement are signs that I am an intelligence agency handler, because that’s what those sorts of people do: they ask questions and protect themselves from risks they don’t need to incur.

• I was drinking beer from a half pint glass on one of the shows, someone comments in Dorian’s ‘Beefing with Patrick Mockridge’ video that that shows I am an alcohol abuser, that I am damaged in some way for doing so.

• Dorian states in the comments that ‘I let a little praise go to my head and went apeshit with it’ i.e. that we entered into our relationship originally because I was seeking praise and not just trying to do what I felt was right at the time: explain very complex stuff to a large audience in a simple way.

So we clearly have two separate lines of attack here that are mutually exclusive criticisms. The first is that I’m some sort of damaged substance abusing loser with a chip on my shoulder taking it out on Dorian, the second is that I’m an intelligence agency handler and a master manipulator.

Both cannot be true at the same time. Firstly, to provide context, in reality it is fairly normal for guests and hosts to drink on podcasts. On Joe Rogan, Charlamagne and so forth guests and hosts regularly drink hard proof spirits, and might finish a bottle or more between them over the duration of the show. I drink beer from a half pint glass, maybe a whole pint, which is a lot for a Hobbit I know but, over the course of two hours to wet my throat and loosen my lips a bit, I am called out for not just drinking, but having a problem with alcohol, and Dorian, a recovering alcoholic himself, affirms that criticism.

What this boils down to is the same thing Mark Fisher described in ‘Exiting the Vampire Castle’ whereby vices are framed as virtues for one class and sins for another. It is no different to woke call out culture in this way. Gay Pride good, White Pride bad, it’s the same sort of thing: Joe Rogan drinks whiskey by the bottle good, Patrick Mockridge drinks beer by the half pint bad. So that criticism is based on a tacit class structure in the podcast community and different moral standards between different types of contributors who are perceived as being of a higher or lower social class. This criticism reaffirms my ‘low status’ alongside such statements from Dorian as ‘he let a little praise go to his head and went apeshit’, that I’m a low status individual asking Dorian, the high status individual, for praise, attention and a platform for my own personal benefit, because I need his status to have status. In this way it is a logical line of attack, a way to attack the man to attack the message it stands up on its own.

The problem with this, however, is that the other entirely separate criticism of me is that I am a ‘handler’ otherwise termed a ‘technocrat’ or sometimes ‘bureaucrat’: someone who gives the story tellers the script and makes sure that they stick to it. Such an individual lives by way of rents and taxes, which means they are of the ‘upper middle class’ not the lower class. So Dorian via his own schizoid splitting defence mechanism opened up both lines of attack against perceived ‘enemies of truth’: the lazy poor leeches who won’t pull themselves up by their bootstraps, who instead whinge and moan and drink beer and resent those of high status, such as himself, obviously, for not sharing it, and the technocratic Darkloads controlling the Overton Window of acceptable opinions. According to Dorian’s critique of my negotiation with him we are ‘beefing’ because I am both, and neither he nor his audience are even remotely aware of the absurdity of this: that one person can be both archetypes, both things. I have to be both things for their criticism to hold water, so I am, but I also can’t be because it is paradoxical and absurd, but this is the sort of schizoid splitting that the internet in its current form encourages and has done for well over a decade. The same absurdities of the ‘woke left’ in 2013 are the same absurdities of the D-list forked niche ‘Truther Movement’ communities in 2025. All the core mechanics are the same.

These mechanics can be entirely framed in terms of the Romeo-Juliet framework and the ‘ethics’ of the Q movement that Dorian came from. The framework also explains why Dorian decided to circle the wagons at precisely the time that he did.

• Dorian originated from Q and Gene Decode to then fork off and become anti Q and anti Gene Decode, his platform is defined primarily by what it is not, not what it is, within an Overton window defined by Rumble echo chamber discourse and where engagement is still driven by Technocrats with their own agendas and where the genesis of discourse is still Q and Wayne Willot, all those original Psyops et cetera. Being anti reptile aliens doesn’t necessarily make anyone pro-truth, this fallacy persists and is fed via Siren Server mechanics.

• When told to stick to the facts when it’s important, not the feels, the response is ‘GO FUCK YOURSELF’ and ‘I don’t want any of that shit’ showing that the Overton Window is strong and vibe coded i.e. ‘you had to be there’ not about objective truth, material risk, variance, what can be measured and traded, it is tribal and cultish. It’s still vibe coded fiefdoms, much like the memecoin business, with much the same economic and social mechanics. Macho in appearance, but sensitive, cowardly and fem brained in reality.

• White hats and black hats, reptile aliens and so forth were an engagement farming tactic in the formation of new Siren Server platforms, such as Rumble and Truth Social. There were and are agendas at work, the mechanics of this have been clearly described for over a decade, same as there was for engagement farming on Facebook in the late noughties, where Peter Thiel was also an early investor. It’s not some huge new discovery that fake and ghey CIA tech promotes fake and ghey stuff for very nefarious purposes. That’s old news and it’s blue pilled and retarded to say otherwise.

• Roger Stone is a material figure in the genesis of the story, is in many ways a technocrat himself and performs many of the same functions. He is not naturally technocratically minded, but will always know enough to be dangerous, to get in on the ground floor and take advantage of change. He is the sort of character who loves the limelight for its own sake, which is why he let his guard down in the making of a Storm Foretold, but also the sort of person who understands that there is no such thing as bad publicity with a few strategic aspersions cast here and there: such as that his phone tirade at the end of the movie was AI generated, precisely what I asked Dorian to be careful with and was told ‘GO FUCK YOURSELF’ for asking.

• This was made all the more glaringly suspect when both Patrick Byrne and Roger Stone, both strongly linked to J6 and Mike Gill’s evidence, blocked me within a very short duration of each other for following this line of reasoning up.

• Cost of moving from one technocratic overton window to another for those with little technical competence nor understanding is huge. Technically minded people can read books, learn to code, build their own apps, create their own communities with their own vision, but those who aren’t technically minded are stuck in the Technocratic Overton Window of the present, the current thing. That’s Dorian. To challenge that is to risk his platform and the edifice of ‘freedom’ he claims to be defending. He claims to be fighting the Technocrats but when it comes to potentially biting the hand that feeds him, the system that gives him a platform, Dorian instead chooses to defend it from someone like me who doesn’t care and doesn’t want it, much less need it.

• Freedom is easy when the stakes are low, agreement is easy, but freedom is expensive when the stakes get higher. We Scottish people know this, we have over 1000 years of history proving it, an ocean of blood in the soil nurturing it. Dorian and myself reached the limit of our consensus with respect to that, the cheap American ‘Imma Do Wut I Want’ sense of freedom reached its limits. I’m still happy with the content we did, and that content was carefully crafted to increase the stakes incrementally, knowing that something like this was always a risk.

• When the stakes got beyond a certain threshold, Dorian was forced to draw both of his ‘Naughty Ninja’ swords by attacking me both as a ‘handler’, acknowledging that technocratic costs exist and are a greater threat to his own freedom than mine, that his freedom is beholden to technocracy far more than my own is, re-framing our DMs as something other than negotiation between equal partners about variance and cost, an Eavesdropping attack, while simultaneously doing the woke call out culture shaming, feeding the perception that I am a low status substance abuser with status signalling and dog-piling, a Sybil attack, undermining my social belonging and status at the same time, that ‘a little praise’ from his audience that I worked tirelessly to educate, went to my head, not that I am a bona fide process safety engineer and engineering technology expert regardless of him and the opinions of his audience.

• This ‘engineers don’t exist’ attitude is a ‘let them eat cake’ attitude, and that’s basically what Dorian has revealed himself to be: a minion of an oppressive and kleptocratic technocratic system, a minion of everything he claims to stand against, that he is so hopelessly dependent upon that system that he stabbed an ally in the back rather than give himself the chance face it on open ground. Engineering exists because engineers exist, that’s real, and engineering happens perfectly fine without podcasters, but the reverse is not true.

• Dorian says he doesn’t care about his brand, but all his criticism is vibe coded, which is branding, hitting the buzzwords, the dog whistles that he knows will energise his audience, and he focused so much on that, so much on circling the wagons and being a tin pot micro-celebrity that he forgot to ask himself if what he was saying even made any sense to begin with. It only does make sense in terms of what I already described many years ago.

What’s great about this experience, and Mike Gill’s similar experiences, is that we can now start defining systems of measurement, incentives and network rules, following the Dan Robles Innovation Bank principles for knowledge assets. We can start to clearly define this problem, with clear case study examples, under well defined conditions. We have a yardstick that overcomes the ‘Wittgenstein’s Ruler’ problem described by Nassim Taleb to disentangle the facts from the podcasters and the platforms.

I don’t know whether Mike Gill will choose to follow me on this path or not. This incident has created questions in my mind regarding how much I can help Mike Gill if he continues down the podcaster route. For me it’s proven itself to be a dead end, and the solution is an engineering solution, not asking those who benefit from the status quo to materially change it to their own detriment. I have texted Mike my thoughts and strong opinions on this, he’s remained quiet. Let’s see. Next up we stop talking problems and start talking solutions again.

Until next time. TTFN.