Lord Keynes is so fervent a follower o’ the “Post-Keynesian” cult that he literally named himself after Keynes—something I don’t e’en think Marxists or Misesians have e’er done; & when you look mo’ cultish than Marxists & Austrian-schoolers, you know you’re fucking something up.
Anyway, he wrote his own list o’ principles for his Keynesian Manifesto for Milquetoast Liberals that isn’t based on hardly any arguments—’cept the controversial proposition 9, which I’ll get to—so much as knee-jerk rants gainst petty annoyances some yahoos on YouTube have caused him. He demands that the vacuous blob known only abstractly as “the Left” obey these laws @ once or suffer the worst punishment known to civilization: being made fun o’ by a tiny cobble o’ rich white men whom the vast majority o’ the world have ne’er heard o’. I’m sure these thought criminals will totally fall on their knees & beg “Lord” Keynes for forgiveness, saying, “¡You’re totally right! I have seen the light o’ your clearly self-evident Bible passages,” & not laugh in derision @ him & forget ’bout it when they get distracted by some silly “Lenincat” picture, or whatever stupid shit Millennials like to waste their time on.
The 1st rule is that one must give up Marxism & bourgeoisie big-C “Communism” (li’l-C “communism’s” still OK, though, as well as “socialism,”—¡Such as Magical Socialism™! ¡We’re in the clear!—“collectivism,” & whatever other meaningless words you like). This is ’cause believing in these things will automatically make you totalitarian, since some Marxists ran totalitarian countries (some Keynesians did, too, & some Marxists won seats in parliamentary systems; but that’s irrelevant). See, Engels—who is Marx’s alter-ego, by the way—once said that revolution was “authoritarian,” & Keynes interprets that to mean “totalitarian,” e’en though Engels clearly meant “the masses committing mass violence”—also known as war, which is how “revolutions” kind o’ work—not a tiny group controlling the majority completely (to be fair, said “revolutions” could certainly be described as “horrific” by people who find not living in a miserable war zone to be quite comfortable; just not “totalitarian.”). Clearly, believing in Marxism means believing everything Marx believed. Similarly, in order to believe in Keynesianism, one must believe in eugenics, since Keynes believed that, & we don’t want to be a hypocrite, ¿do we, Lord Keynes, Master Debater?
The 2nd rule is basically the true crux o’ the 1st, making the 1st redundant. Great editing, Lord Keynes.
It’s the most important: everyone must obey my particular ideology. It’s strange how many ideologies, no matter how different, demand this rule. & it’s e’en stranger how there’s so many people who refuse to obey it.
Still, we shouldn’t discount Lord Keynes, for he did give a solid defense o’ Post-Keynesianism. It’s just truly well hidden (well, ‘cept for lists o’ books you have to pay for–¡You can join the Grand Order o’ Keynes’s Ghost for only 20 payments o’ $19.99 if you call within the next 10 minutes!)
&, hey, the 3rd rule is just an extension o’ the 2nd rule, banning e’en mo’ thought crimes that conflict with God’s chosen economic philosophy (‘cept, in God’s defense, a’least mo’ than 1% o’ the population gives a shit ’bout God, whereas nobody cares ’bout Post-Keynesianism, or any economic philosophy, save something ‘long the lines o’, “the government’s doing too much for other people & not ‘nough for me”).
4 & 5 are both the same, & thus shouldn’t be divided. It’s the same PC schlock that Jonathan Chait spewed: Lord Keynes’s butthurt ’bout some “real” (no evidence given, though, so we’ll just have to trust the unquestionable wisdom o’ Lord Keynes’s Li’l Red Blog Post) conspiracy o’ feminists & civil rights fanatics to keep idiots like Lord Keynes from saying stupid things—as we can clearly see he’s unable to do in this blog post he didn’t post.
Also note that gender, racial, & other class issues “draw attention” from “serious” economic issues, says the unbiased economist. I’m sure every black person reading this (0) will be thinking, “You’re right: my fear o’ being murdered by corrupt police is so unimportant. I should focus all my attention on Lord Keynes’s need to constantly feel smug superiority @ having his philosophical neuroses stroked, since he’s so important, & I’m just some shabby regular person.”
Though many o’ these points show it (see proposition 9 later), I think this best shows what I think would be the best advice: ignore the sham that is the “Left.” &, better: women, black people, LGBQT, & people who think Super Mario World is better than Super Mario Bros. 3 (sniff, we’re the true victims): I’d recommend you tell Post-Keynesians to go fuck themselves & ignore them. Lord Keynes has already said flat-out that he doesn’t give a shit ’bout your feelings or concerns; ¿why should you care ’bout his? He can’t e’en say, like most exploitive moderate liberals, that you need Post-Keynesians ’cause they’re purportedly the only ones who can save you from the concentration camps that conservatives are planning to set up if they have power; he already said straight-out that he considers your issues utterly unimportant—in fact, worse, that they are hindering distractions. ¿Why not consider Post-Keynesian pseudoscientific garbage a distraction from true, concrete issues & ignore them?
See, that’s what the “Left” is: it’s a way for narrow interests to try snaring everyone else into serving them without caring ’bout others’ interests. It’s nothing but political narcissism. & that ‘splains why the “Left” is such a vague blob o’ a concept: what is “true” leftism depends on whom you’re talking to. Obviously a woman who’s been raped (or just ‘fraid to be, ’cause look @ the statistics on sexual assault) will consider feminism to be the utmost o’ leftism, just as a poor white male will consider economics the heart o’ leftism, or rich white men who spend their lives studying abstract bullshit that’s ’bout as important as the statistics in Pokémon will consider the heart to be some abstract bullshit ’cause that’s what’s most important in their empty vessel o’ a wasted existence.
The 6th principle calls for Western leaders who commit war crimes to be actually charged for it, e’en though the chances o’ such calls actually succeeding are ’bout the same as the chances o’ the Zombie Marx rising from his grave & riding in on his flying phallosaurus to bring communism & letsstickdicksineachothersbumsism to everyone—as prophesized in The Economicon. This would be especially hard in the US, where I’m pretty certain every president’s committed some war crimes–a’least according to Lord Keynes’s & my favorite almost-dead white male.
Hey, wait a minute: so class issues are distractions from the “serious” economic issues, ¿but putting politicians no longer e’en in power in jail isn’t? Lord Keynes must truly not care ’bout people who aren’t white & male.
The 7th principle is that leftists must finally stop spewing such nonsense that Super Mario World is better than Super Mario—
O, all right, the true 7th principle is just ‘nother dig @ postmodernism—which is just the name everyone gives to any philosophy that one can’t understand, whether it’s due to that person’s idiocy or the philosophy’s idiocy with communication (to be fair, it’s usually the latter). It also strangely argues that the left should stop being so open ’bout religion in politics & school—as the left always is, ‘course.
So, basically, my version would’ve been as relevant.
This becomes funnier when Sir Phillip Pilkington–disguised as “The Illusionist” to protect him from all the communist spies lurking ’bout who won’t let him join their club–calls LK a hypocrite for supporting what rich organizations called “colleges” call “science” in every other subject, but criticizes mainstream economics–which, by definition, makes Lord Keynes “fringe” in economics. Lord Keynes is, ‘course, not impressed by this logic; clearly the economists aren’t scientists, while the others are, ’cause that’s just objectively true–I just say so.
You appear to be saying that when policy-makers need advice they shouldn’t — as a general principle — turn to experts?
Again, this is totally absurd. The problem you are referring to is that they are asking the WRONG experts **in some cases**. Are you going to tell me that if a UK government called in leading UK Post Keynesian economists to give policy advice that this would be wrong?
No, see, the narrow elites who try to control people are OK if they’re “Post-Keynesians,” ’cause “Post-Keynesians” are “good,”–we could e’en call them “proletarian”–while the “Neoclassicals” are “bad”–“bourgeois,” we could say.
“The Illusionist” has a hilarious response to Lord Keynes’s claim that he believes that the earth revolving round the sun is a conspiracy by the League o’ Evil Scientists:
That’s not what I’m saying. Read my comments and try again.
This is similar to Keynes’s reaction–in the comments o’ this 100th time he reiterated his views on the Labor Theory o’ Value, since the man loves padding his blog to a billion posts–to someone criticizing his interpretation while still criticizing Marx–also known as this mysterious species LK has ne’er heard o’ before called “someone with a speck o’ independent thought”:
So, wait, you are not a Marxist but you write comments that sound like you are defending the LTV, the core of Marxism?
Lord Keynes’s 4-bit brain short-circuited @ this logical impossibility so much that he somehow missed the “An Anarchist FAQ” under the guy’s name. Reading comprehension’s muy importante, LK.
But this just demonstrates Lord Keynes’s simple-minded thinking. Though sometimes, just due to the law o’ averages, he’s logical or accurate (when there are authentic flaws in his opponent ideologies), it’s clear that he doesn’t care a pixel ’bout truth, but ’bout trying to bulk his petty ideology on the flimsiest foundation possible. & despite his sneers gainst the crazy, extreme laissez-faire libertarians & Marxists, he consistently proves himself to be just as theocratic–it’s just that the Bible he’s thumping is Keynes’s works, ‘stead o’ Marx’s or Rothbard’s.
Anyway, the 8th principle is Lord Keynes’s hate gainst the EU, supposedly in support for “national democracy” (though without supporting authentic, direct democracy within those actual countries) but truly ’cause it’s a block to his ideology. That he calls it “one of the most outrageously regressive forces in the world today” is hilarious. Forget ’bout the distraction that is the Middle Easterners being blown into Mortal Kombat gibs by drones; ¡the EU’s policies are inspired by a belief in exogenous money!
& the 9th, controversial principle, is that Europeans need to learn to stop immigrants from coming in, which leftists bizarrely support—almost as if they seem to care ’bout these “racial equality” distractions that keep getting the ‘way o’ poor white bigots getting their rightfully-earned welfare—unlike those nonwhites, who are just sponges.
This is given 3 reasons:
1. Consistent immigrant tolerance is apparently “anarcho-capitalist libertarian,” & thus “crazy.” It would cause “catastrophe” that “everyone sensible can see”—¡it’s so obvious that Lord Keynes doesn’t e’en have to bother providing evidence!
2. The majority is gainst immigrant tolerance, & rather than, I dunno, maybe trying to change the majority’s mind while keeping some modicum o’ independent thought, we should just obey what the majority says. So much for communists being “hive-minded” & Keynesians for supporting “liberal individualism.” That the group o’ eligible voters from which this “majority” comes doesn’t include said immigrants doesn’t make this fact any mo’ surprising than the fact that rich people generally oppose welfare for poor people—it’s this li’l thing we call “narcissism.” But this becomes laughable when they pretend that this is based on some “liberal principles” & not the fact that they just-as-greedily shove classes lower that themselves out o’ economic prosperity with police force as the conservative businesses do to European-born lower-classes.
3. Immigrants get in the way o’ pure-born Westerners getting mo’ money. Why leftists should care mo’ ’bout spoiled Westerners than starving immigrants from war-torn countries is a mystery. But then, that’s the pattern o’ hypocritical moderate liberals: they pretend that they’re fighting gainst those greedy, powerful rich people while helping the middle class fuck o’er authentically poor people. Since they don’t give a shit ’bout other people, the rational response is to not give a fuck ’bout them. Fuck Europeans: let them starve as hard as Africans.
Also, apparently these immigrants aren’t authentically destitute people desperate for a way to stay ‘live, but a conspiracy created by Big Business® to foil the working class.
Addendum:
Also, ¿am I the only one who realized that “Post-Keynesian” means “after Keynes”–as in, rejecting Keynes & going past him? ¿Why, then, are so many “Post-Keynesians” such worshippers o’ Keynes?
¿Am I also the only one who’s noticed that any ideology beginning with “post” is vapid nonsense?
Other fine work by Lord Keynes:
All right, all right: sorry for being so “politically incorrect” with you Anti-PC Nazis. Wouldn’t want any white men to cry.
OK, I understand plenty o’ black people saying, “Hey, you know, maybe I can like some Aristotle, too, e’en if he doesn’t have the same amount o’ melanin in him—I mean, I don’t complain ’bout all the whites I see rapping ‘long with Jay-Z.” & since I can imagine tons o’ black people thinking that way, I’m just thinking, ¿wouldn’t it have helped Lord Keynes’s case if he could’ve found just 1 black person saying this, & not some white guy pretending to know how black people think? If the Republican Party can find a’least 3, it shouldn’t be that hard for Post-Keynesians. I mean, you guys don’t want to be whiter than the Republican Party, ¿do you? That’s like solar-eclipse-flare white.
This is meant to slander the Zombie Marx as some uncouth rapscallion who would ne’er fit in with clean bougie types like Keynes; but ‘stead it makes me wonder why Keynes ne’er did badass shit like this (& still produced mediocre economics based on just-as-simplistic deductive bullshit).
¡& here’s ‘nother! (¿What, no mention o’ Marx calling Ferdinant Lassalle the N-word, & calling his “importunity” “nigger-like,” as well as mocking all his filthy Jewishness, all ’cause he wouldn’t give Marx money so Marx could pay his rent [¿Didn’t Lassalle realize that his interest & capital were guaranteed?]? I guess in this case Lord Keynes’s rabid anti-PC fanaticism actually supplanted his rabid anti-Marxist fanaticism somehow.)
My favorite part is the Glenn-Beck-style bullshit @ the end:
Finally, lest I be accused of trying to use ad hominem argument, let me state that of course none of this disproves any of Marx’s ideas on economics at all, which stand and fall on their own merits. I am simply interested in Marx’s personal opinions and intellectual ideas [emphasis on the apex o’ bullshittery mine]
Read on as Lord Keynes somehow makes a ditzy Marxist Utopianist look less Utopianist with Lord Keynes’s “government guaranteed minimal income (say, $40,000) and transfer payments to people who lack inherited wealth or money savings” plan, that can be proven to be practical by the fact that we have a welfare system where we throw the dirty poors a few bones—that, & apparently using fantasy economies made up in Lord Keynes’s head is perfectly valid… so long as they back Post-Keynesian rules. Those familiar with Post-Keynesianism will recognize this as the same tactic neoclassicals use to defend their bullshit (¡don’t forget Noah Smith’s sci-fi thriller with the income distribution that randomly & abruptly changes!), which Post-Keynesians criticize them for. After all, Post-Keynesians are s’posed to be the ones who look @ the economy as it truly is… ‘less that gets in the way o’ moderate liberals’ equally-contrived—though mo’ boring—Utopian nonsense.
No surprise, he just praises Hitchens for things that follow Lord Keynes’s particular beliefs & bashes anything that strays. Anyone intelligent would find it worse to share beliefs with Hitchens, since he was a loudmouthed moron who replaced logic with bombastic style & thus soiled any ideology his lips have e’er kissed. That was why Fox News loved having him on, e’en before his conversion to neoconservativism: his loudmouthed jackassery perfectly fit the conservative stereotype o’ atheists–& Hitchens fit that shit like a latex glove.
I especially love Lord Keynes’s acute psychoanalysis skills:
[L]ike so many left-wing intellectuals and especially members of the New Left generation, he obviously thought it was “cool” to be a Marxist[.]
You could say that the Marxisms “got all the fishsticks in their grits,” as those “down with the sickness” say.
This is right up there with Mises’s The Anti-Capitalist Mentality in the study o’ bullshit ideologues pull out their asses to distract from actual logical points for which they have li’l to contribute.
Lord Keynes is stupid when he’s praising someone & he’s stupid when he’s bashing them. I sense a pattern…
‘Course, this is due to the moderate left not becoming brainwashed by fringe economic pseudoscience & caring mo’ ’bout the feelings o’ psychologically-traumatized people not to be traumatized o’er privileged white idiots saying stupid shit, & not due to the moderate left just sucking ass.
¡Ha, ha, ha! ¡Yes!¡ You catch those Russian spies led by Lord Palmerston–or as most people call him, “He Who Shall Not Be Named,”–Marx! ¡They’re trying to take ‘way our bazookas!
I’m actually mo’ bummed out by LK’s stupidity than I am by the others I mocked. I don’t have any faith in Noah Smith, Mankiw, or any o’ the numbskulls @ the churches o’ Mises to e’er become anything but clowns for me to mock; but LK could have the potential to be in the narrow category o’ people who write ’bout economics & aren’t numbskulls2 if he could free himself from the clutches o’ the Cult o’ Keynes.
Footnotes:
After all, the working class are too “drunken and ignorant” to keep from filling the world with their filth says the great Moderate Liberal Prophet who will totally be the savior for the lower class by bashing them in the most bigoted o’ terms
Lord Keynes, e’er the ideologically-blind hypocrite, would argue that Engels’s views on authoritarianism are intrinsic to communism—he did invent communism all by himself, after all—but is indignant @ the ad hominem in people who imply that Keynes’s elitist hatred o’ weaker classes has anything to do with a philosophy that supports having a tiny cabal o’ upper-class people known as a “parliament” dictate what is good for the lower classes—since the lower classes are clearly too drunken & ignorant to decide for themselves.
For the record, I am not a part o’ this class–but only ’cause I don’t support any o’ your filthy bourgeois classes. Only clean bourgeois classes for me, thanks.
