I think you're projecting a lot onto this. All the author of the OP is pointing out is that PG's political writing is often very naive, in a way that makes it clear he doesn't do even the most basic research on the topic before pontificating. This is something worth calling out because PG is offering himself as an authority on these subjects. He's also a skillful writer, so his plausible off the cuff impressions sound reasonably smart if you don't do any research yourself.

None of these observations on PG's blogging are particularly new, and I've had the same criticism of much of his startup specific advice as it essentially attributed success to nebulous concepts like "pattern matching skill."

It feels like you're the one trying classify what the essay's saying in a weird way. Someone can critique a person without condemning them. One can say that PG's opinions shouldn't be taken seriously without saying that he's a 'wrongthinker.'

The internet gives a mouthpiece to many, many people; not everyone's opinion should be considered with equal weight. The essay's author uses the example, "EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE." It is content that someone put a lot of time and effort into. How should I use the ideas and world view found in the timecube website to forge my own?

Probably not much. That's what I equivalate with "taking seriously," and a "serious public intellectual" is someone whose opinions I would probably consider when forming my own.

I don't think the author is tearing PG down to try and oust him from his material wealth; just saying, maybe what he writes in his essays shouldn't be taken as seriously as some of us thought.