Dear Ken Griffin, Founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Co-Chief Investment Officer of Citadel,

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you, about why you withdraw your financial support for Harvard’s stupid Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) education. I feel aligned with what I heard you say about problem solving and write this letter, in the hope, that it will reach you, somehow. To be any good at problem solving, our individual language is needed, but since we all were conditioned, to slavishly, unconsciously, mechanically engage in Disembodied Language (DL), we are unable to optimally use our own intelligence.

 

I fully agree, that solving problems ideally is done together with others – as we always know more together, than alone – therefore, it is of utmost importance, to have the right people around us. Of course, the people who are more than ever very much needed, are the innovators, those who can get us out of our history of conditioning with DL. I know for a fact, that I am the only one, who can do  this. The proof is in the pudding, so you will have to talk with me, to find out for yourself, what it is like, to stop DL and engage in Embodied Language (EL).

 

If you – or any other business leader – is really looking for aptitude, perseverance, grit, resilience and communication skills, you definitely don’t want more of that same stupid, insensitive, coercive DL, but you want people to know and capitalize on EL, which, I should say, is the language of the future. I say this with great conviction, because DL is already on it’s deathbed. The very reason, that the tide on DEI or Critical Race Theory (CRT) and all sorts of other narrative-oriented indoctrination is turning, is that our outdated DL, the language of the group, is superseded by EL, the language of the individual. I know, that people haven’t heard anything yet about the huge difference between their DL and their EL, but we are all about to find out, as the rapid decline of the aforementioned necessary qualities in Gen-Z, are the inevitable consequence of our dull, reactive, obsolete, impulsive, immature, demanding DL.

 

Make no mistake, in DL, which is our common way of dealing with language, there is, in essence, never any passion to learn anything, because all we really care about, is that we are, supposedly, right about whatever bullshit we say we believe in. Of course, all of this Woke crap is protected by the Freedom of Speech, but we have yet to discover, what it actually takes, to be responsible, so we can finally begin to take charge of our own language and engage in EL.

 

Anyone who manages to stop their self-defeating, problematic, unproductive DL, so that he or she can engage in EL, must be a very resilient person, as the bottom line is, that we all unconsciously, cave into our conditioning history with DL. So, in other words, those who engage in EL, dare to stand and be alone. Only those, who have truly worked through their own difficulties, can have EL and are able to face challenges, which require logic and simplification.

 

Ken, when you speak about the need to be resilient, when things don’t go smoothly, you fail to recognize that things never go smoothly in DL, as DL is always a struggle about who or what is the most important. When we know the difference between DL and EL, we would be inclined to stop DL first, and have EL instead, before we proceed with what we are doing. When you say, you’ve got have perseverance, you are basically saying, that you’ve got to endure DL, but if you have the choice to have EL, you know that DL is inferior to EL and EL leads to better outcomes.

 

Our DL cannot and does not create a collaborative environment – we merely pay lip service – because all DL communicators always are adversarial to each other. Without admitting and exploring the great difference between DL and EL, our extra emphasis on communication implies, we must accept, rather than stop, DL. EL and DL are mutually exclusive, we can’t have EL as long as our DL keeps going and we cannot demand a collaborate environment.

 

Our over-appreciation and over-exaggeration of the importance of debates, will completely change, if we have ongoing, effortless EL and realize, this new way of dealing with language, is a viable, crucially important communication skill, which is much more productive in generating and sharing stimulating, novel ideas with one another, than our usual DL. The technology revolution hasn’t done anything to help improve interpersonal communication. Right now, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is, inadvertently, still based on our unconscious DL, which we are feeding into our speech-recognition and speech-rendering programs. The so-called efficiency-gains, which will emerge from our EL, are going to be much greater and this will make us more powerful economically.

 

DL is the language, which undermines action and is the very anthesis to improving productivity. It has to be stopped, because there is a better way of dealing with language, EL, the language of cooperation, which will make it emphatically clear to us, that this language must always be done by us, individually, consciously, skillfully, consistently and cannot be programmed. In fact, although we speak with each other, DL is, in and of itself, a form of programmed speech, because we are acting out our conditioning. Thus, discerning what can be automated and what needs to be done by people, looks and sounds totally different when we acknowledge DL and EL.

 

DL and not EL, has resulted in the sad, but, luckily, reversable situation, where major elite educational institutions produce snowflakes instead of leaders. I agree that business is all about how we can make things happen, but what impairs this process, has to be purged, that is, we have to abandon the way of talking, DL, which has led to these outlandish ideas, which are being produced, as we haven’t, with our EL, communicated our individual freedom correctly.