Paul Samuelson is the most influential American economist ‘mong people who have actually read economics (i.e. doesn’t include the average dope who claims Paul “Baby-Sitter’s Club” Krugman or Helicopter Milton Fucking Friedman as filling that role). He wrote the most influential American textbook, the creatively-named Economics, for half a century. Then he let some drunken slob William Nordhaus dumb it down by shoving in mo’ references to the need to maintain market freedumbs & other propagandist noise that gets in the way o’ Paul Samuelson’s sexy curves o’ relationships based on assumptions that he himself within the text admits are probably wrong.

Thus, we will getting this from the 1976 edition, a classic that was unsoiled from Nordhaus’s lecherous grip (&, as a bonus, cost only $5 on Amazon, as opposed to $200 mo’ than I’d e’er pay for a fucking economics book–¡just look @ how that price drop causes the substitution effect to come into place!) To be specific, we’ll look @ page 600 for 1 o’ Samuelson’s sadly underrated theories that proves the net productivity o’ capital:

To see this, imagine two islands exactly alike. Each has exactly the same primary factors of labor and land. Island A uses these primary factors directly to produce consumption product [sic]; she uses no produced capital goods at all. Island B, on the other hand, for a preliminary period sacrificed current consumption; instead, she uses some of her land and labor to produce intermediate capital goods such as plows, shovels, and synthesized chemicals. After this preliminary period of sacrificing current consumption pleasures in the interests of net capital formation, she ends up with a varied stock of capital goods, i.e., with a sizable amount of capital. Now let us measure the amount of consumption product [sic] she can go on permanently producing with her land, labor, and constantly replaced capital goods.

Careful measurement of Island B’s “roundabout” product shows it to be greater than Island A’s “direct” product. Why is it greater? Why does B get more than 100 units of future consumption goods for her initial sacrifice of 100 units of present consumption? That is a technological engineering question. To sum up, the economist traditionally takes the following answer as a basic technical fact:

There exist roundabout processes, which take time to get started and completed, that are more productive than direct processes. [All bolding mine; italics in original.]

A few points to note:

• In Samuelson’s fantasy archipelago, Island A’s resident feeds herself on dirt, while Island B magically makes shovels & synthetic chemicals through only dirt & her brute force.
• This “preliminary period of sacrificing current consumption pleasures” becomes threatening to the whole productivity o’ the operation if it leads Island B’s resident to starve to death before finally producing food–& considering how long it takes to make shovels out o’ dirt, that’s a likely scenario.
• Samuelson’s vague ’bout what “equal primary factors of labor” is, but I’ll assume it’s time spent working. Otherwise we might have to imagine someone not only creating shovels out o’ dirt, but also doing so while only holding said dirt up to their mouth & opening & closing their mouth–& I don’t think a simple time difference in scheduling these actions would change the outcome much, other than the aforementioned starvation problem.
• Samuelson spews random #s that have no basis in the 1st paragraph &, ‘pon asking rhetorically how he arrived @ those #s, turns that rhetorical question into a real question (something I’ve ne’er seen before, but intrigues me on a literary level immensely) by noting that “this is a technological engineering question,” which means that Samuelson essentially admits that his #s were completely made up.
• Samuelson “sums up” by simply noting that economists take some arbitrary, & quite vaguely worded, claim as a traditional given. Acute readers will note that this does not “sum up” this entire thought experiment so much as have nothing to do with said story. “To sum up my story, economists believe for reasons completely unrelated to my story @ all that there are some circular actions that take any real # o’ time–which is to say, they are any kind o’ actions–that are mo’ productive than just eating dirt.” (I may have misinterpreted something.)

  I don’t know why people bitch ’bout economics being “boring”: if you pay attention, it’s hilarious.

  Still, you can’t argue with his central point: if you had a choice ‘tween an island in which you just eat dirt all day or an island in which you can use magic to create all kinds o’ tools & chemicals out o’ just dirt, ¿why would anyone want boring ol’ Island A?

I shuffled my papers so much till they molded into millions.

“Just start with 1 true statement,” said Hemingway.

I stepped up to the microphone & cleared my throat:

I am amazed by how much I prefer the rain to the sun.

¿Was that too many words? ¿Should I have kept it to just, “I prefer the rain to the sun? ¿Would that have been punchier?

She didn’t look @ me. She continued staring down @ the pad in her lap & wrote.

“¿& what do you think makes the rain seem mo’ appealing than the sun?”

O, I dunno.

“Just guess. There’s no wrong answers. It’s your world: do what you want.”

Rain is less dry.

Rain isn’t dry.

It’s wet.

Finally, she looked up @ me. “¿& what makes that mo’ appealing?”

Well, I guess, I guess that it’s just that, that I,

I feel like I can feel it.

Then sun feels so distant,

its dry heat so half-hearted;

but rain touches me up close.

& yet, everyone adores the sun;

¿but who adores the rain,

who creates just as much value,

but gets li’l credit?

“¿You think it’s a li’l unfair, maybe?”

¡It’s injustice!

“It is rather drab, though, ¿don’t you think? All grays.”

¿Is gray not a color?

¿Does it not have just as many lights & darks as purples, greens, & reds?

¿Can it not cooperate with other hues just as much as they do ‘mong each other?

¿Have you forgotten ’bout cobalt? ¿Thistle? ¿Rusty red?

“I guess I had…”

& not all rain is gray:

some is black, some is purple;

some is the color o’ rocky oil,

dancing down thirsty storm drains;

some is patched with the brown, orange, red, & yellow o’ leaves;

some is solar yellow

in front o’ after-midnight streetlamps;

some is every rainbow hue @ once.

She flipped through a few papers.

“Yes, I’ve read you mentioning storm drains & leaves a few times before.

¿Is there anything else you associate with rain?”

Too many things.

Why, just last night I saw a chain link fence

that seemed to sweat under the collaboration

‘tween the rain & the streetlamps.

¿Who could imagine seeing such a thing?

“I mus—

¿Have you see—? O, sorry…

“No, go on.”

¿Have you seen rain stains in the street—

some hours into a cessation after a hard rain?

“No, I haven’t. ¿Do they look good?”

Unbearably beautiful.

“`Unbearable.’ You seem to treat the rain’s beauty as something o’ a tragedy.

¿Is that due to the world not appreciating it?”

Yes.

I don’t know why,

but I like the look o’ something so dreary but harmless—

so pitiful.

Rain’s cute,

the li’l guy.

I guess that says something wrong with me.

She shrugged. “There are many who feel that way.”

You don’t need to patronize me;

I know & accept that there’s something wrong with me.

“¿Why do you think you’re `wrong’ for liking something unpopular, like rain?

¿Didn’t you say yourself that ’twas unjust for other people to not appreciate rain?

Those are just ‘scuses for my refusal to make compromises.

I should learn to love the sun.

That’s how good people succeed.

“¿But didn’t you just criticize them for not compromising on their love for the sun?

Compromises have to go both ways, after all.”

…

It took me a while to realize she was calling my name repeatedly.

“I noticed you have trouble keeping from looking outside.

You just can’t get o’er your love o’ the rain, ¿can you?”

Yes, it’s like heroin.

It’s toxic.

“¿Do you think it’s toxic;

or is it that you think other people think it’s toxic.”

That’s what the winner’s say.

They’re winners for a reason:

they’re right, & I’m wrong.

If you can’t beat e’m…

“¿Who says they’re winners—

or a’least that they’re the only ones who are winners?”

They have money,

& they can get it doing what they want.

People respect them.

“¿But didn’t you say that people were wrong for thinking that?

I thought ’twas `unjust’.”

I take it back,

I take it all back—

the muddy foot tracks,

the crumpled leaves,

the bubbling rain water that looks like oil o’er the concrete…

Fuck…

“¿Is having money & respect worth giving up something you clearly love so much?”

¿What, is money just for decoration?

You can’t eat, can’t drink, can’t live without money.

The rain is struck down by Mammon’s thunder,

nightingales pale to the power o’ the pecuniary,

the steadfast bright star’s ‘stead fastly shot down by universal finance.

That’s why people like Keats & Shakespeare are dead so young,

their dusty work buried to mold,

only truly read by a few ol’ cranks,

while tossed blurry in cobwebbed corners o’ the average mind,

while the gold on which we all revolve shines stronger than all.

¡Yes! ¡Money is everything!

¡Rain is nothing!

Don’t patronize me:

just ’cause I’m a fool,

doesn’t mean you need to feed my foolishness.

Now ’twas time for her to pause in silence.

Finally, she said, “You’re dramatizing:

actually, if you look @ studies,

most people consider such things as aspirations, family, & friends to be mo’ important than money.”

They’re fools.

¿What would they know ’bout themselves?

The fact is that they can’t have any o’ those other things without money.

The average person thinks li’l o’ the sun;

but their lives revolve round its heat & its fuel for oxygen all the same.

“But you yourself said that the rain was just as necessary:

plants can’t live & make oxygen without rain, either.”

¿So?

“So, I ask ‘gain, ¿how can loving the rain be so bad if it’s an objective fact that rain is necessary for life?”

¿“So”?

¿“So”?

So, I can barely pay my rent, my student debt, my gas & car maintenance, these cloud-high sessions that my star-high insurance doesn’t pay for, & food;

¿Who gives a fuck ’bout rain when one has to worry ’bout getting ‘nough to afford this all?

“I’m sorry to hear all that.

It can be stressful to deal with so much in such limited time ‘lone, ¿isn’t it?

It seems to me that maybe that’s 1 other thing that might make rain so appealing:

it’s calming, ¿isn’t it?

In fact, your contrast there seems to explain it:

maybe it’s precisely ’cause rain’s so removed from all the stresses in life that you enjoy it so much.

Maybe what you’re looking for is a temporary ‘scape from the stresses.”

Yes, it’s like opium.

It’s toxic.

It’s a delusion.

You can’t ‘scape the stresses.

“¿Not e’en for a few minutes every so oft?”

&, ¿what, just turn off my mind every so oft?

“Sure. ¿What harm could it do?”

¿How would I do that?

“Just stop thinking ’bout the stresses for a moment.”

¡I can’t! ¡That’s the problem!

¿& what use is breaking off pieces o’ my limited time for something useless?

Successful people don’t do that:

they get rich doing what they want ’cause that’s efficient.

The point is that there’s a diametrical contrast ‘tween what I like & what is successful.

In this world where one’s career is one’s life,

one can’t afford to live like that.

“¿& why can’t you be successful liking the rain?

As you said, it’s necessary.”

I told you: people don’t value it;

& if people don’t value it,

they won’t pay for it.

While poetry ’bout the sun can sell bank,

¿who the hell wants to buy poems ’bout dirty ol’ rain?

“Well, ¿why can’t you convince people to buy poems ’bout rain?

If rain’s as necessary as you say it is,

there must be a market for them.”

But I just shook my head.

No, I checked.

Maybe in years gone…

But now…

But, god, did I love the sound o’ that pattering on my window…

I followed her glance up @ the clock,

having not noticed till now that ’twas ticking similar to the raindrops.

“Well, let’s schedule ‘nother session.

¿Would 2 weeks from now be good?”

I nodded, but my gaze was somewhere else,

my mind was somewhere else.

* * *

“Have a nice day.”

I raised a hand, but didn’t look back.

I stepped out the front door into the embrace o’ the rain.

¿Remember Magical Socialism™, that silly religion/political school that I made up based on the pretentiousness o’ the various Qualitative Socialisms–¿Where’s “postsocialism,” by the way? We might as well have that–& the cultishness o’ economic schools?

Well, it turns out our friend Lord Keynes is trying to do that with “Realist Left,” including creating a Reddit topic, a Facebook page, & designs for a hypothetical Wikipedia entry. ‘Cept he’s dead fucking serious–which is the silliest thing o’ all.

Reddit Page

&, as we can see from the Reddit page, it’s truly a blooming new political label, right up there with “New Left” & “Left-Libertarian” in terms o’ notability:

As you can see, under the giant Mao-like portrait o’ smarmy-as-fuck Keynes–the real Keynes, not the Lord variety–this topic has a whopping 5 topics, almost all o’ which are started by obviously-not-LK CamelCase “EnUnLugarDeLaMancha.” Most are just link dumps o’ articles from his blog, & most have no comments. The only comments come from “Realist Left,” which is probably also LK.

Part o’ me thinks he had to try hard to make a Keynesian Reddit topic that didn’t attract Austrian-school insults like bears to honey; but then I realized that most o’ them are also part o’ die Anti-PC Polizei, so they probably hung in indecision for hours ‘pon reading the topic, unsure o’ whether to bash it for perpetuating the devilish blasphemy o’ Keynes & how his gayness ruined economics fore’er, or whether they should praise it for also bitching ’bout bitches that be taking all my boys’ sweet attention from the Tamestream media.

Facebook Page

There’s not much to say ’bout the Facebook page, since it’s just, as is the nature o’ Facebook, a place for link pimping. Also I can’t stand navigating The Wastelands 2.0. All I’ll mention is this Leistung o’ a banner image @ its top:

I don’t know if that creepy uncle sipping a mug o’ what must be human blood on the left is John Maynard Keynes, but he frightens me. He, & the gang o’ children he’s kidnapped seem to be just as amused as I am by LK’s sad attempt @ making “Realist Left” a thing. “He he he: ‘Realist Left.’ ¡What a fucking joke!”

As if to confirm my murderous suspicions o’ creepy black-&-white Keynes, the text is an elegant red slasher font promising that this Facebook page will be the best horror flick o’ the year.

Also, can I put on my web-designer hat & bitch @ whatever dumb ass decided to save that banner as a 24-bit PNG worth o’er 200 KB when I was able to shrink it to ’bout 60 KB with minimal quality loss simply by saving it as a JPG–you know, as fucking photographs are s’posed to be saved. I thought I left this tedium ‘hind with my sprite-comic-mocking days, but apparently not. You’re not going to help the working class much when they have to either get gold-plated internet or wait hours to load your website.

Imaginary Wikipedia Page

Last we have a sweet Wikipedia article plan that will probably be rejected from Wikipedia, ’cause LK & his hive are the only people who use the term. Also, “Realist Left” is a value statement that’s impossible to define objectively. That’s like terming oneself the “Awesome Left,” as opposed to one’s enemies, the “Pedophilic Left.” I’m sure there won’t be conflicts when his followers try adding that to Wikipedia–since our great Lord Keynes is much too important to waste his time on such vulgar low-level details.

In fact, we see this @ the start o’ the article, wherein he contrasts the “Realist Left” with the “Regressive Left”–literally the “Poopy-head Left.” He’s actually thinking ’bout adding an article to Wikipedia that is nothing but a verbose form o’ “Fuck Leftists who focus on gender, race, & religious issues.”

But the Origins are golden (which means you Redditors better buy a lot o’ it before the $ plummets–¡It’s coming any time now!):

The Realist Left emerged in 2016 amongst older and younger left-wing people profoundly dissatisfied not only with mainstream left-wing, neoliberal political parties, but also with mainstream cultural leftism, including French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism, truth relativism, extreme social constructivism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, extreme multiculturalism, and divisive identity politics.

(Laughs). Yes, that famous time in 2016 when such high figures as “Lord Keynes,” “Ken B.,” & “The Illusionist” came together @ some Blogspot blog to bitch ’bout pussy Millenials & their love for French philosophy (& who can’t e’en get laid–¡ha!) is right up there with the “Students for a Democratic Society” meeting @ University of Michigan or The “Cambridge Circus” discussions in terms o’ historic importance.

It’s a good thing he emphasizes that this includes both “older” & “younger” left-wingers. “None o’ you fucking middle-aged assholes, though. You can keep your dumbass fucking New Left.” (If “New Left” is New Coke & “Old Left” is “Classic Coke,” I can only imagine that “Realist Left” must be something like “Shasta Cola” or some other sludgy knock-off 10¢ cheaper.)

Early supporters of the Realist Left also felt that many people of the Millennial generation will come to abandon cultural leftism and Social Justice Warrior (SJW) politics, but that such people will need some new left-wing politics to fall back on when this happens, so that they will not be lost to the Right.

[Citation needed.]

Ah, yes, ’cause Lord Keynes said so. That’s why. He doesn’t offer any reasons; he simply states that ’cause it’s “petty” & “irrelevant,” which are also only ’cause he says so. E’en if this were correct, there are still people who think capitalism’s inevitably going to collapse, e’en after 100 years–when we all know that shit’s like AIDS &’ll ne’er go ‘way. E’en if immigration was such a threat to the majority o’ Americans getting jobs so shitty & low-paying that starvation is almost better (‘gain, LK ne’er gives any evidence, ‘cept that which disproves this), that wouldn’t stop most people from clinging stubbornly ’cause they’re, well, stubborn.

Just like neoclassicals, LK is wrongly assuming humans have perfect rationality. & just like the kind o’ narcissist who makes up encyclopedia articles for their own pretend political clubs, talking ’bout their li’l click in 3rd person as if an objective viewer, he wrongly assumes that he is rational.

Also, “Social Justice Warrior” is totally an objective scientific term appropriate for Wikipedia. ¿Did it e’er occur to LK that Wikipedia has much different standards than his silly li’l blog? I hope if any economics journal e’er made the mistake o’ publishing his work (snort) he wouldn’t consider putting “the SJW Neoliberal Illuminati” as a reference to those who don’t believe in the Modern Monetary Theory. Maybe he’ll supplement his research with that link to a video calling laissy libertarians “full retard.”

The rest is just verbosely saying that “Realist Leftists” oppose the SJW Neoliberal Illuminati & oppose their drunken brothers, laissy libs, & that they support Post-Keynesianism & a bunch o’ objectively-good things like “Full Employment” & “High Wages” that they can’t guarantee. They also oppose “mass immigration” on “economic” grounds without mentioning that the vast majority o’ research shows that immigration has a positive effect on employment & wages & that the “Realist Left” has no scientific backing on their opposition to immigration @ all, hence why LK ne’er links to any on his blogs.

Hilariously, they also bitch ’bout how the breakdown o’ “Nuclear families” ruins economics–which means that these “Keynesians” also apparently think that Keynes himself hurt economics with his homosexuality, too.

I also love this hypocrisy:

(2) Realist Left politics supports reasonable and sensible civil and equity women’s rights and gay rights, but not cultural leftist identity politics or endless cults of victimology, and the bizarre conspiracy theories that blame all our problems on the capitalist, white-male, heterosexual patriarchy and universal “institutional racism.”

Blaming the SJW Neoliberal establishment & their conspiracy to manufacture multiculturalism, as said by some book published by some Bohemian Bourgeoisie when he was stoned, is perfectly rational, though.

E’en better:

4. Internet presence
Realist Left ideas are promoted on the internet on social media and blogs (see external links). The economic ideas of the Realist Left can be found on Post Keynesian and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) blogs, though these economists do not necessarily identify with the Realist Left and would take different political positions.

In short: “Here’s some ads for my other work, Wikipedia.”

As for the comments, Seb offers this brilliant insight in a

Also, 2) Do you think this new left-wing is noticeable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article and Wikipedia moderators to allow it? Because apart from some Facebook pages and unless there’s evidence to the contrary, I don’t think it is.

‘Course, LK assures him, yes, without any argument to back him up (LK should learn that his bold assertions should actually have something close to reason ‘hind it).

Yeah, no: that shit’s going to be shot down as quickly as GoldenGoomba21’s immensely culturally important sprite comic, “Sonic’s Zany Tails.”

Advice for LK if he reads this: try TV Tropes ‘stead, since they have no notability. Hell, you might as well make a page for your dumb blog, too. They have a page on that dumb site with that rap ‘tween bad actor in Halloween-moustache Keynes & Hayek, so they clearly have no standards.

Also, ¿Why no “Regressive Left” page? We need balance, LK.

Actually fuck that: We need a Magical Socialism™ page on Wikipedia. Get on that, peons. You wouldn’t want to be… reactionary… or bourgeois… or regressive… or pedophilic, ¿would you?

That’s what I thought.

I made the mistake o’ checking in on Social Democracy for the 21st Century, which I mocked mo’ than half a year earlier, & the ridiculousness o’ its content has gone from depressing to just laughable.

Immigration

“Lord Keynes,” who is so lazy a devotee o’ John Maynard Keynes that he just up & stole his name to the confusion o’ everyone, truly has a hard on for opposition to vaguely-defined “mass immigration,” despite having no rational basis. For instance, if one looks @ the papers he links here, one consistently sees minor positive influences o’ immigration on employment (with 1 paper stating that there was minor negative in the short run, but positive in the long run). Considering the basis o’ his argument was that immigration was just a conspiracy by the rich as “class war” gainst the working class, his argument obviously falls apart–¡& with evidence he provides! All he has left are a bunch o’ people who, ’bout a century ago, opposed immigration. Yeah, it’s also true that 19th-century socialists like Proudhon, Marx, & Bakunin were outright antisemites & racists. Shocking that people centuries ago may not have been as enlightened as we are now.

‘Course, anyone who understands how “class war” works can easily see how stupid this “plan” o’ the rich’s would be. Yes, under mindless mainstream economics–which Lord Keynes pretends to be mo’ sophisticated for, ‘less it serves his preconceived ulterior aims (so much for the labor market not being the same as other markets, “Post Keyensians”–god, I hate that dumb ass term)–a greater supply o’ workers may decrease the price; but what mindless mainstream economics ignores is that a greater supply o’ workers also increases their political power. That’s why Republicans are so ardent in fighting immigration: they’re seeing before their eyes how immigrants are turning their precious southern red states purple.

‘Stead, Lord Keynes trumpets voter-fraud scares based on weak anecdotal evidence. When a commenter asks LK to provide actual data, LK insults that person & simply reiterates his points. This is a common tactic o’ his, right out o’ the Bill O’Reilly school o’ pundit hackery: ignore critics’ valid points & ‘stead force their own irrelevant points, & then threaten to silence them by blocking their comments if they don’t answer exactly as he wants.

& some o’ his arguments are pure nonsense. Look @ this:

Now we have a second question for you: you asserted that given that low percentage of migrants, they were “hardly enough to sway any election.”

You now have direct evidence of an election stolen by ethnic voting fraud.

Actually, there wasn’t any. If LK actually looked up the issues, he’d know that, for the only real controversy, the Tower Hamlets 1, the allegedly “ineligible” votes weren’t ‘nough to sway the election:

A report for Labour’s NEC found that 16 of the roughly 900 people who took part in the candidate selection ballot might have been ineligible, but couldn’t say if they had voted for Rahman. Even if they had, it would not have affected the outcome. Rahman had won by 182.

& LK shouldn’t have the balls to throw round talk o’ “intellectual honesty” when he uses such bullshit weasel words as “there was very recently a strong suspicion that the Oldham West and Royton by-election was tainted by postal vote fraud [emphasis mine].” ¿By whom? A bunch o’ whiny UK Independent Party sore losers without an ounce o’ evidence, that’s who.

Also loved this line o’ LK’s

So please just f*ck off if all you can do is insult me like this, because I am not going to be slandered [emphasis mine] by anybody.

It seems that it’s not just American bigots who are too dumb to understand English…

Still, a’least he was courteous ‘nough to censor “fuck” in the most obvious way possible. There could be kiddies reading this.

Also, his defense o’ such luminary sources as fucking Breitbart.com on the basis that criticism is mere “ad-hominem” is bullshit. Breitbart isn’t so controversial ’cause it’s right-wing (nobody criticized him sourcing The Daily Mail); Breitbart is so controversial ’cause it’s been caught many times lying & manipulating facts, including doctoring documentaries (just look up Shirley Sherrod video or their “expose” on ACORN–the fact that the latter involved alleged voter fraud should especially make rational readers wary). Once you engage in that shit, you lose all credibility as a source, case-closed. & if Keynes’s claim that “Breitbart in that article is mostly just reporting the facts as you can read them in left-wing UK news sources like the Independent or Guardian,” ¿then why didn’t he quote those much mo’ trustworthy sources? ‘Cause they aren’t spewing these same “facts”–as I pointed out earlier, The Guardian disputes his claim o’ the effectiveness o’ the alleged Towers voter fraud on the election outcome–’cause he’s full o’ horseshit.

Then we get this genius work from habitual commenter Ken B:

The answer is, it doesn’t fricking matter is [sic] the information they cite is accurate. It’s dishonest to pretend you can ignore facts because people you don’t like cite them.

If the information they cite isn’t accurate, then by definition it isn’t fucking facts you fucking moron.

But it gets wackier. He quotes some dumbfuck @ Jacobin conflating neoliberalism & not being a bigot. “Most neoliberals aren’t bigots, so people who aren’t bigots are neoliberals. Duh, ¿What’s a Venn diagram?”

Then we get this nonsense:

Michaels even argues that the core of the Tea Party Movement was an element of profound middle class – even upper middle class – hostility to neoliberalism on the issue of mass immigration:

That’s right, Lord Keynes & Michaels are trying to argue that the Tea Party was a good, anti-laissez-faire political movement. You know, that movement whose core was laissez-faire economics, that couldn’t shut up ‘nough ’bout nonsense like “smaller government” & “low taxes” & “low spending” & whatever. That’s why it’s called the “tea party” movement, based on a (simplistic) interpretation o’ the Boston Tea Party as an anti-tax protest. We’re talking ’bout a movement started by Ron Paul fans–’cause we all know how much Ron Paul hates laissez-faire. If you think the Tea Party Movement is anti neoliberal, then, congrats, you are officially lobotomized.

If you read the clusterfuck mess o’ words that Michael pukes out–clearly he didn’t bother with such bourgeoise nonsense as proper fucking editing–you’ll read a lot o’ paragraphs o’ hand-wringing that basically says, neoliberalism is basically nothing mo’ than an equivalent o’ supporting illegal immigration, ’cause Milton Friedman said that you can’t have a welfare state with illegal immigration without any evidence. Yes, & Friedman also thought that Monetarism was a useful tool for preventing depressions. It’s quite clear that Milton Friedman’s a fucking idiot & that his wise words aren’t worth shit. I reiterate my point: ¿how the hell does increasing the population o’ working class people, & thereby their influence on the electorate, hurt their ability to compel the electorate to pass welfare? & you can’t fall on supply & demand, ’cause welfare is, by definition, outside o’ the fucking market. It’s not like there’s some imaginary rule that says that if there’s too many people, well, fuck, I guess the government can’t have welfare anymo’, for reasons. I guess they’d just run out o’ money, since any Keynesian knows that the government can’t spend mo’ than they take in from taxes, & the government can’t raise taxes, ’cause leading Keynesian social democrats Dick Armey & David Koch wouldn’t support that.

As for his defenses o’ anti-immigration on “cultural” & “democratic” grounds, these both fall apart:

Democratic

This is a corrupt, self-perpetuating argument: apparently “democracy” is conspiring to keep people from a different class from having access to said democracy through citizenship. Shocking that said “democracies” may be biased gainst them.

You could flip Lord Keynes’s voter-fraud scares: while greater protection may minimize Muslims getting mo’ votes than they merit, it’s just as possible that it would lead to Muslims who deserve the right to vote, & who have done nothing wrong, to be cut out, too, given the imprecision o’ the issue. ¿Why is Lord Keynes mo’ comfortable with unfairly costing Muslims votes o’er unfairly gaining Muslims votes, ‘specially when they are, either way, still relatively less powerful than whites?

In fact, an American couldn’t help noticing that LK’s defense o’ “Europe for Europeans” is suspiciously similar to southern US states’ “States Rights,” which is historically used as a ‘scuse to deprive black people o’ rights & portray southern states that do so as victims who have their “culture” wrongfully infringed by the evil federales. Both are equally hypocritical: if it’s OK for them to suppress other cultures, it’s just OK to suppress those cultures.

Culture

As for the “culture” part: the assumption that “Swedes” or “Tibetians” are the “rightful” owners o’ “Sweden” & “Tibet”–merely due to arbitrary history–is the same mindless logic market thumpers use to argue gainst any income redistribution. Rational people acknowledge that the past is full o’ so many disruptions that the current distribution o’ property–including land. Just as capitalists haven’t actually proven that they are the “rightful” owners o’ their property, Europeans haven’t proven that they are the “rightful” owners o’ theirs.

& if LK wants to talk ’bout culture & nations being disrupted by foreign influences, maybe he should read a fucking history book & learn ’bout the UK & its long history o’ dominating Middle Eastern countries through violent force–including chopping up the Middle East into the national boundaries that persist to this day. But while it’s fine to leave them with the consequences o’ that, ¡but don’t you dare let too many Muslims come into the UK &… not truly lower wages or hurt welfare @ all! After all, we have to see who the true victims are.

As a few commenters have pointed out, on basic logic, discriminating gainst someone due to their birthplace is no different, logically, from discriminating gainst someone due to race, gender, or any other aspect they didn’t chose. If anything, Muslims who actually work to get to Great Britain have proven themselves mo’ meritorious than lazy Britains who were just born there & otherwise did jack shit to deserve the privileges with which they were born. To support this double standard is neither consistent with socialist equality or purported laissez-faire meritocracy, or any rational ethical basis. It’s just hypocritical corruption–a mindless obedience to arbitrary tradition. That’s why both socialist Millennials & neoliberal elites support immigration–the same reason both socialists & capitalist supporters believe the earth revolves round the sun. That’s why Lord Keynes’s “Old Left” is dying out, as he bemoans so much. He can’t back it up with empirical evidence, he can’t back it up with logic. All he can back it up with are reams o’ ad hominem guilty-by-association arguments & paeans to the superstitious tradition o’ “culture.” The “Old Left” is dying ’cause it’s mental garbage & deserves to die, ‘long with creationism or flat-earth theory.

Also, LK is so historically ignorant or deceitful that he expects people to believe that the early 20th century–the era o’ the original Keynes–was the era o’ the “Old Left,” when the left goes far back to the 19th century, before Keynes e’er existed. & feminism & antiracism have been a part o’ the left longer than Keynes e’er was. To argue that they were inventions o’ those vile 60s hippies is the stupidest thing LK could say–& considering what we’ve seen him say, that says a lot. Same goes for open borders. ‘Gain, before Keynes was e’en born, classical socialists like Marx were famously saying, “The working men have no country.”

Identity Politics

Lord Keynes’s criticism o’ “identity politics”–from what I can understand, since he ne’er formally defines that term, is simply giving a shit ’bout anyone who isn’t white or male–is vague & incoherent in a suspicious way. LK loves to reiterate repeatedly that he isn’t racist or sexist–as if racists & sexists have ne’er said that–but repeatedly bashes feminism in general. ‘Cause nothing’s worse than women daring to get jobs for themselves ‘stead o’ being baby-making machines when it threatens men’s feelings o’ “running the home”–¡a vital necessity for men!

As for race, LK seems to have no problem with unironically calling alt-right Jared Taylor’s racial views that whites & Asians are biologically superior in intelligence as “race realism.”

The deep irony is that despite Lord Keynes’s criticism o’ Marxism, this attitude o’ his toward “identity politics” is taken straight out o’ the book o’ chauvinistic Marxists: that racial or gender issues are mere “distractions” from the “important” issues o’ poverty ‘mong white men.

¿But how are these issues not important to these other people? After all, ¿what use is welfare or work if women are still forced to be miserably dominated by men & black people & Muslims are still being murdered in the street? ‘Specially if LK’s promised true panacea isn’t e’en that great. A’least Marx promised true political equality; LK promises continued economic subservience o’ the working class, but with slightly better living conditions. Whooie. Considering one’s identity is central to their entire existence, it’s absurd to call caring ’bout one’s identity frivolous. Before one worries ’bout keeping oneself ‘live, one needs to worry ’bout having a reason to live @ all. Personally, if I were forced to spend the bulk o’ my life taking care o’ some snot-nosed brats or obeying some dumb brute o’ a man, I wouldn’t be so keen on guaranteed meager subsistence.

This myth truly bugs me: that such higher-level goals as self-actualization are only for the privileged; the poor need only care ’bout keeping themselves ‘live so they can continue to be mindless tools to be used by rich people so they can find self-actualization. This is whence comes the right-wing insistence on stereotyping working class people–or a’least the “good” working class–as folksy, “simple” (uncreative) people, while bemoaning weird, different, cosmopolitan things as “elitist”–as if only rich people can enjoy creativity.

This assumption is not surprising from Keynesians, since their own deity claimed that the working class were merely “boorish” & that only the rich were “the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human achievement.”

Also, in more o’ LK’s ad hominem nonsense, he’s trying to spin some conspiracy that caring ’bout nonwhites, women, & gays–as well as all o’ the other cultural developments o’ the 60s & 70s–was all manufactured by the evil corporations to get cheap labor–proven by the primary sources that are YouTube clips o’ Vodka ads. ‘Cept they’re not truly saying that, since it’s obvious bullshit; they’re just hinting is all.

Look @ this brilliant exchange ‘tween Ken B & Lord Keynes’s main partner in crime, “The Illusionist,”–or as he’s called when he’s not in his D&D club, Phillip Pilkington–where Ken B somehow looks like the rational 1:

Ken B:

Idiots. I am not denying business bows down to SJW shit. But you have the sequence backwards. The culture is not full of SJWs because the Fortune 500 instituted diversity training bullshit. Companies go along to get along, to avoid potests, and suits, and OHSA complaints, and bad press and …

The Illusionist:

And we didn’t say it was, Kenny boy.

Ken B:

You certainly did say it. You said they were part of the program. That’s what part of the program means. If you meant they were useful idiots you’d have said useful idiots instead.

The Illusionist:

I meant they were active pushers. It is well-known that the 60s countercultural ‘revolution’ was driven by marketers:

They pushed this crap in the 60s. Now the crap has become more extreme and they’re pushing bathroom police and other nonsense.

This is very much so corporate driven. And if you’re familiar with corporate culture you’ll know why.

1 The Illusionist comment: “We didn’t say businesses inspired diversity.” Next comment: “But businesses totally inspired diversity.” That certainly is some magic illusion you pulled off there, Prospero.

But don’t worry, “Illusionist”: you can simply whine @ Ken B for excluding him from the “club” & for considering you “not 1 o’ us” & ignore all o’ his points, like you did when you tried arguing with Marxists on some other guy’s blog (ne’er live it down).

In general, LK’s tactic is the most mindless o’ ad hominem fallacies: he simply points out that elite capitalists support a thing, & therefore to oppose it must be the “true” left, ignoring that there are many things that both socialists & capitalists support simply ’cause it’s obvious. Based on that logic, since the elite neoliberal capitalists all oppose monarchy, true leftists should support monarchy–since we all know democracy is just a ploy by the rich to better control the government through the public using their control o’ the means o’ communication to control them. ¿See? I can make up bullshit conspiracies, too. It’s not hard. It shouldn’t be shocking that both neoliberals & socialists support feminism, racial equality, & equality o’ national origins: anyone halfway civilized is, just as is anyone who opposed monarchy, feudalism, or any other backward idea from medieval times. With ‘nough conflicts in terms o’ economics ‘tween neoliberals & socialists, it seems counterintuitive to try & bring back long-dead conflicts, like whether or not someone should be locked out o’ opportunities simply ’cause they were born in ‘nother country or born with a vagina, outside o’ their control.

The Problem with Keynesianism

This all brings us to a bigger problem: not only is it futile for Lord Keynes to talk ’bout what women or racial minorities should care ’bout; he’s clearly not e’en working class, ¿so what right does he have to talk ’bout e’en the interests o’ working-class white men like me?

I’m going to let Lord Keynes in on a li’l secret to working-class living: welfare isn’t as useful as he thinks it is. Honestly, the worst part isn’t so much just poverty as it is being forced to spend the majority o’ one’s time doing the most soul-crushingly tedious, inane, insulting, subservient work there is. No ‘mount o’ welfare or higher wages changes that, ‘less it’s so high that I can save ‘nough to retire much earlier than when I’m just ’bout to die.

That’s what the ol’ socialists understood, which was why they’re goal wasn’t petty welfare or wage increases, but changing the fundamental political relationship ‘tween workers & capitalists. Indeed, Keynes–both Lord Keynes & the original Keynes–were so dim that they didn’t e’en understand what made “capitalists” capitalists; it wasn’t that they were simply “rich,” but that they were so rich that they were free from working for someone else & could spend their time doing what they wanted to do, & still make money. That social relation was the most useful contribution o’ classical socialist economics, & Keynesians routinely miss it in favor o’ focusing on insignificant shit like the labor theory & their own petty abstract bullshit ’cause they’re just as ignorant, just as sheltered from the actual living conditions o’ most people as the neoclassicals they hypocritically criticize.

So, Lord Keynes’s practical solution is to keep the majority o’ the public in miserable subservient conditions for most o’ their lives,–in fact, to embed them mo’ into it, since the goal o’ Keynesianism is to increase employment¹–just that they’re less likely to starve & mo’ likely to live such miserable existences longer; & in return, women must go back to the kitchen, make babies, & be subservient to their husbands, & Muslims & other immigrants can stay in their own countries to starve. Forget “You have nothing to lose but your chains”; Keynesians will make it all better by prettying up your chains with slick paint & shiny bows. ¡Viva la mediocridad!

So, let’s summarize LK’s “Old Left”: they’re sexist, racist, nationalist, anti-foreigner, & not only support capitalism, but support the philosophy that, by the words o’ its own creator, Keynes, despises working-class people–& yet they claim they support working class (white male) people simply ’cause they’re opposed to the vaguely-defined “too much immigration,” regardless o’ most other issues… ¿So it’s 1 consistency is its opposition to weaker classes? Sounds rather right-wing to me; but in these Orwellian times, ¿who knows? ¿& who cares? Whatever he wants to call it, it has no basis in science (e’en the empirical evidence he found showed that immigration had a positive effect for the working class) or logic, & thus I’d rather just define it as “mental garbage.”

Also, I should point out that he defines those evil SJW (i.e. people who support such silly things as justice–AKA, consistent logic–as opposed to hypocritical, narrow interests) leftists the “regressive left,” “regressive” being no mo’ descriptive than a mere empty insult. It’s the intellectual equivalent o’ calling them the “poopie-head left” & demonstrates the level o’ rationality ‘hind LK’s arguments: don’t definitively defend a point, just assert it in the most simple-minded way & call anyone who doesn’t agree fools who will pay or useful idiots to the neoclassical Illuminati. Meanwhile, the “regressive left” laugh & shrug on, minds unchanged.

---

Footnotes:

[1] This reminds me o’ the ol’ Chumbawamba song, “The Candidates Find Common Ground”:

Full employment, slave labor & schemes,
an unemployed workforce, a capitalist dream;
But let’s keep Britain working–
¡Either way, we must keep Britain working!

---

Digression: “How I Left Common Sense”

& don’t get me started on some bullshit link some Anonymous commenter linked to, “How I Left the Left”, which is full o’ biotruth bullshit:

In actual fact, most women are instinctually driven to have children and this occupies a good deal of their consciousness. This manifests negatively in female feminists in their obsession with abortion. Abortion is how they politicise the denial of this core component of their femininity. Women also have a tendency to be more self-denying, devoted and, of course, motherly. This is again tied up with child-rearing but in the modern world it is exploited by employers who use this to extract more labour from compliant women. Feminists glorify this exploitation because it allows them to justify the suppression of the self-denying, devoted, motherly aspects of women which men do not possess in nearly the same degree. It was immediately obvious to me that this ideology leads many women into lives of extreme unhappiness.

Don’t be bothered by his utter lack o’ scientific evidence; he assures us that he has “a fairly strong grasp of the psychiatric literature,” without any evidence to back it up. Quite contrary, a simple look online will show that, for instance, his idea o’ what the “psychiatric literature” says on transgenders differs quite strongly from what actual, official psychological organizations say. Since he provides ample evidence (none), this is shocking.

I also love some earlier logic he uses: he knows that “actual” women are completely different from men in that they’re feminine (the concept o’ a feminine man, or that men can be different @ all, is ‘course not e’en considered @ all). ¿How does he know that? ‘Cause these “actual” women are simply women who aren’t feminists–which is to say, people who believe it’s OK for women to not fall into standards o’ femininity. Great circular logic, bud.

E’en if this were true, ¿who cares? Humans also instinctually become irrational when in stressful situations. Part o’ this thing called “modernity” is that humans develop this semblance o’ independent thought & fight gainst mindless animalistic “instincts” & do what they want to do ’cause they’re not mindless fucking animals.

¿Have I entered a time warp? ¿When has the basic ability o’ individuals to choose their own personality & behavior–to a reasonable extent that does not infringe on others ‘bove the usual–become radical ‘gain? I mean, we’re not talking ’bout women running round chopping off people’s dicks here; we’re talking ’bout women being evil ‘nough to get jobs or not be ruled by men or to have some semblance o’ independence from social norms.

From Grundrisse 05¹:

In fact of course, this ‘productive’ worker cares as much about the crappy shit he has to make as does the capitalist himself who employs him, and who also couldn’t give a damn for the junk.

I love how Marx emphasized that this shit was “crappy.” That’s right up there with “trashy garbage” or “pissy urine.”

‘Nother great line in which Marx is defending his homie, Adam Smith, gainst critics (or a’least certain critics):

What the other economists advance against it is either horse-piss [sic] […]

Producing horse piss is 1 o’ those things like belief in Say’s Law that ne’er goes out o’ style.

Hilariously, Marx is mo’ vociferous gainst people who might believe in the “mud pie” version o’ the labor theory than the most anti-Marx Austrian-schooler:

Or² the modern economists have turned themselves into such sycophants of the bourgeois that they want to demonstrate to the latter that it is productive labour when somebody picks the lice out of his hair, or strokes his tail, because for example the latter activity will make his fat head – blockhead – clearer the next day in the office.

Marxist.org does note in the contents page, “Marx did not intend it for publication as is, so it can be stylistically very rough in places.” No shit.

Part o’ me wishes there were mo’ “uncensored versions” o’ famous economics books, like General Theory or Paul Samuelson’s Economics. I can only imagine an early version o’ “Postulates of the Classical Economics”: “So these fucking retards Say, J. S. Mill, & Marshall spew some horse-shit that savings don’t exist.”

---

Footnotes:

• [1] I can only assume that “Grundrisse” is German for “horse-piss.”
• [2] Yes, Marx stops a sentence in the middle o’ an either-or statement, having not learned o’ a semicolon yet.

“I don’t want to wake up tomorrow.”

So I didn’t.

Before you read

Warning: The next paragraph is a trigger warning. If you are an anti-SJW who is offended by the intolerable political correctness imbued in trigger warnings, you should avoid reading the next paragraph.

Trigger Warning: as the title indicates, this article makes quite a few dark jokes ’bout suicide, some o’ which sarcastically treat suicide in a lighter manner than normal society might, exploiting said incongruence for comedic sake. If you are depressed or suicidal & might be pushed off the edge o’ despair @ the shamefulness o’ some internet jagoff wasting time scrutinizing some poem nobody e’en cares ’bout ‘stead o’ doing anything productive, or just have good taste & don’t want to read it, anyway, you might want to not read it & play Wario Land 3 ‘stead, ’cause it’s great. If you’re depressed or suicidal & find jokes ’bout suicide hilarious, please enjoy.

& as for you fucking normies–you can read, but I’ve got my eye on you. Watch yourself.

Read

It’s good to see that modern humans haven’t developed the self-awareness to not make the kind o’ poetic chicken slop for the insipid soul we thought we threw ‘way in the 19th century.

M. Norman @ some Garbage Bin 2.0 called “Odyssey”, who warns you that she’ll tell you the things you don’t want to hear, man writes a poem that doubles as a #-less list article ’bout what you’ll miss if you drink that kool-aid given to you by that nice but scruffy-bearded man leading the Healing Center you always look forward to on Thursday afternoons in the back alley.

Everything You Will Miss If You Commit Suicide

If this isn’t false advertisement, then I expect this to be the longest epic since, well, the true Odyssey–& just as redundant & banal.

But things fall apart right on the 1st line:

The world needs you.

Already we’re going gainst the theme o’ our poem. “The world needs you” is not a thing @ all, much less something that could be missed if one committed suicide. & if it could be missed, that would be a benefit: ¿who wants to be bossed round by some needy world?

You won’t see the sunrise or have your favorite breakfast in the morning.

But after that she finally gets to the things readers will miss if they do decide to dunk themselves in the Pacific with an anvil tied round their waists & for some reason look to random blogs for last confirmation–which presumably succeeded, since it only reminds readers that the only good thing they have in life is watching the same shit that happens every morn & eating diabetes-inducing sugar shards every day.

Instead, your family will mourn the sunrise because it means another day without you.

I picture in my head a whole family grouped together outside, shaking their fist @ the faceless sun falling ‘hind the horizon. “¡It’s all your fault, sun!”

I must confess, this poem did surprise me for once: I’ve ne’er heard o’ people becoming traumatized by the sun ’cause someone they loved ate their favorite breakfast, handgun bullets. There should be a million other tenuous connections they could make. After all, the moon’s appearance means ‘nother night without them; ¿why doesn’t the moon share any blame?

You will never stay up late talking to your friends or have a bonfire on a summer night.

Then we find a reader who has no friends & ne’er did anything nearly as exciting as setting fire in the middle o’ wildlife on summer nights who is only further reminded o’ the pathetic waste that is their dreary life. Great going, Norman.

You won’t laugh until you cry again, or dance around and be silly.

She tried but misses her mark here. See, she sees that the demographic @ which she’s aiming are oft mentally ill, but fails to realize that these are the things that they want to stop doing. If she truly wanted to sell this “not suicide” thing, she ought to threaten them with such emotional & muscle spasms 20 fold if they guzzle down that whole bottle o’ sleeping pills.

You won’t go on another adventure. You won’t drive around under the moonlight and stars.

¿Are these aimed @ real humans or video game characters? See, ’cause most adult humans don’t do these things ’cause they have these things called responsibilities. Yeah, I can see that it’s much easier to love life when one has ‘nough money from the money fairy or inheritance, apparently, to screw round wasting climate-ruining gas just to watch the night sky.

Man, fuck saving the life o’ this hypothetical reader, the wasteful dipshit. Hey, there’s this li’l thing called walking, asshole. ‘Less you’re an amputee or have severe obesity, you have no ‘scuse. & e’en then, you could just take a single step outside. It’s not like the stars are only in 1 specific place in town.

They’ll miss you. They’ll cry.

(Glances in all directions.) ¿Who’s they? ¿Why are they paying me so much notice?

You won’t fight with your siblings only to make up minutes later and laugh about it.

I won’t either way ’cause the siblings I might’ve had all died in still-birth. Thanks for opening that wound, asshole.

You won’t get to interrogate your sisters [emphasis mine] fiancé, when the time comes.

¡You won’t get to live out your incest/bondage/polygamy fetish!

You won’t be there to wipe away your mother’s tears when she finds out that you’re gone.

¡& now you’re reminding me that my mother died o’ cancer just last year! You just won’t stop till all my triggers are pulled.

You won’t be able to hug the ones that love you while they’re waiting to wake up from the nightmare that had become their reality.

Wait, so the suicidal person’s loved ones can have shitty lives, ¿but not that suicidal person themselves?

Hey, doc: I’m the one with the rope round my neck, not them. ¿Can I get some o’ the hugs for once maybe? ¿No? Well, I guess that just further shows how the world regards me… ¡SNAP! ¡PLYK!

You won’t be at your grandparents funeral, speaking about the good things they did in their life.

Well that’s no laugh. Nobody e’er wants to go to those boring things anyway–& certainly not with the stress o’ trying to write a speech that whitewashes Grampa Ben’s white supremacy & pedophilia ‘way without being too conspicuous.

Instead, they will be at yours.

Awesome. ¡Ha, ha! ¡Sucks to be you, suckers! ¡Have fun in your boring funeral while I’m all chillin’ in the void with Kurt Cobain!

You won’t find your purpose in life, the love of your life, get married or raise a family.

Under that there should be small print that says, “*Discovering purpose &/or love o’ life &/or acquiring marriage &/or family sometime during natural lifetime not guaranteed.”

I love how this poem assumes married people with kids ne’er commit suicide. “I already found my `soul mate’ & family; ¡now I just need to ‘scape those damn jackals! ¡Ahhh!”

You won’t celebrate another Christmas, Easter or birthday.

Maybe that’s ’cause I’m Jewish & I was born on Hitler’s birthday, asshole.

You won’t turn another year older.

Now that’s a good advertisement: O no, you won’t become saggy & weaker. ‘Cause we all know how much people love getting older.

You will never see the places you’ve always dreamed of seeing.

Um, ¿didn’t I already establish the awesome empty void o’ the underworld?

You will not allow yourself the opportunity to get help.

Hey, I don’t need your help: I can reach the bleach bottle all by myself, thanks. I’m not a li’l kid anymo’, mom.

This will be the last sunset you see.

(Laughs.) @ this point the poet gave up. “Fuck it, I already know I’m too stupid to e’en convince people not to destroy themselves. They’re pretty much already dead.”

You’ll never see the sky change from a bright blue to purples, pinks, oranges and yellows meshing together over the landscape again.

O, ¿you mean that li’l think called a “sunset”? Yeah, I think we already established that in the last line, Reverend Lionel Fantharp. ¿You hit your word goal yet so we can end this padding already?

If the light has left your eyes and all you see is the darkness, know that it can get better. Let yourself get better.

Wait, ¡but I’m already dead!

“Don’t worry: you still have 2 mo’ lives.”

This is what you will miss if you leave the world today.

I’m glad to see that this poem is written like an elementary-school book report, ending with a clunky restatement o’ the thesis.

This is who will care about you when you are gone.

“Yes, I totally, like, care ’bout you complete stranger–so much that I didn’t e’en bother to proofread this so as not to accidentally accuse you o’ incest.”

You can change lives. But I hope it’s not at the expense of yours.

“I hope you’re not like 1 o’ those dumb brave doctors who risk their lives in dangerous territories to help others’ lives. Let’s remember numero uno, after all.”

We care. People care.

¿Who’s “we”? ¿What people? ¡I’ll find you cappie spies!

Don’t let today be the end.

I agree: you should take a’least 3 days to plan your suicide so you do it right. Don’t be 1 o’ those lazy slobs who just blast a gun @ their face & just make themselves self-soiling vegetables.

You don’t have to live forever sad. You can be happy. It’s not wrong to ask for help.

Yes, I think we already established an alternative to living sad fore’er. I thought that was what we were trying to avoid.

¿Has any suicidal person e’er been convinced by this shit? “Woah, wait: ¿I can be happy?” Well, if random nobody posting grammatically-incorrect poems for free on content spewing blogs says so, it must be true. ¡All my problems have been solved now that I’ve been told that I can be happy & can get help without any evidence to back it up or explanation for how that might be done! ‘Course, whether anyone will or can help said suicidal person is up in the air–¡but details!

Thank you for staying. Thank you for fighting.

¿What kind o’ fucking poem ends by thanking the reader like it’s a god damn late-night talk show? Granted, ’twas kind o’ a struggle to read through this o’erly long sputter, so maybe you do owe me something.

& then we get this long info dump, full o’ cliches everyone’s already heard:

Suicide is a real problem that no one wants to talk about.

Yeah, it’s right up there with government corruption, liberal bias in the media, & how to not get blacklisted from jobs fore’er for having a smelly physical appearance.

I’m sure you’re no different.

¡Libel! As you can see, I have no problem discussing the subject o’ suicide with as much seriousness as this poet–not @ all.

There is no difference between being suicidal and committing suicide.

Other mind-blowing facts nobody’s talking ’bout: 2 + 2 = 4.

If someone tells you they want to kill themselves, do not think they won’t do it.

“Don’t trust those bastards for a second.”

Do not just tell them, “Oh you’ll be fine.” Because when they aren’t, you will wonder what you could have done to help.

“& won’t you feel like a complete shitheel–maybe e’en shitty ‘nough that you might deserve to put those trembling fingers o’ yours on those razor blades &–wait a minute…”

Sit with them however long you need to and tell them it will get better.

“Pester them & show you don’t truly care ’bout them by giving them the kind o’ insultingly inane happy talk you’d give a 3-year-ol’–presumably so that they become so uncomfortable that they’ll want to speed up the process & no longer burden you with their whining.”

Talk to them about their problems and tell them there is help. Be the help. Get them assistance.

“Insult their intelligence.”

Remind them of all the things they will miss in life.

“Guilt-trip them.”

Holy fuck it’s ’bout time this damn poem ended.

My favorite part: it’s a bunch o’ random happy bullshit, ala 1 o’ those shitty #’d list books, like Chicken Soup for the Soul, but it didn’t e’en rhyme or have meter or any thought put into style, cadence, assonance, or anything that makes a poem a fucking poem. This isn’t a poem: it’s lazy propaganda split into verse lines & called a poem.

Also, she ne’er mentioned not being able to play Wario Land 3, & she did say this was everything, so I’m going to assume I’ll still be able to play it in the afterlife void. That’s relieving.

Seriously, fuck this tripe. It’s not just that it’s inane; it’s clearly insincere. If this narcissistic asshole actually cared, she would’ve put a modicum o’ effort or detail. ‘Stead she just regurgitates cliches like a robot. This is ’bout as deserving o’ praise–which the poet clearly truly desires–as some ditsy celebrity sputtering, “Seriously, somebody’s gotta end poverty & shit. ¿Why isn’t anyone else caring?” & not actually doing jack shit or e’en devising concrete solutions.

I ask ‘gain: ¿how likely is it that someone is suicidal, but can be cured o’ that simply by saying without any evidence, “Things can get better”?

But then, the problem with all anti-suicide messages is that they’re too broad to be useful. It’s rare–possibly e’en nonexistent–for someone to just kill themselves purely for the sake o’ killing themselves. There’s virtually always ‘nother problem lurking ‘neath–problems too varied to answer in 1 li’l poem. & telling someone, “¡But you’ll lose that sexy sunrise!” is not the answer to any o’ them.

In a way, considering all suicides to be a single issue is a bit fallacious. After all, ¿do we truly want to lump together Nazi generals killing themselves to ‘scape war-crime trials with teens bullied in school? ¿What ’bout people in constant physical pain who will die o’ an incurable disease in a year, anyway? If 1 o’ these topics were chosen for a poem, & the problem was treated, seriously–not “Forget all that: think ’bout how cool the stars look, man”–then one might find a poem that isn’t completely devoid o’ intellectual content.

Addendum: ¿What is Odyssey?

¡Phhhh! Read this pretentious schlock:

Odyssey is a social discovery platform committed to democratizing content creation while personalizing discovery.

I love how they emphasize “democratizing content creation,” e’en though they do that no mo’ than any other blog system (&, since the website, as well as those other websites, is still privately owned, it doesn’t e’en truly do that). Quite the opposite, this website offers less control o’er the design & format o’ the blog than, say, WordPress, so it’s not e’en good @ that or “personalizing discovery.”

Honestly, just replace “Odyssey” with “the internet in general” & you have an equally accurate statement.

Launched in June 2014, Odyssey was founded to democratize the media business and elevate engagement […]

I’ve ne’er heard a mo’ milquetoast way o’ describing a communist revolution.

[…] by magnifying broader perspectives and facilitating deeper conversations in and about the world.

So, what they do is not block people outside the US from submitting content. That’s quite an accomplishment that most systems do automatically.

Distributing more than 50,000 pieces of content per month […]

#quantityoverquality.

Odyssey is built to capture the ideas of many and organically amplify those viewpoints to users around the world

OK, this literally makes no sense. ¿You “organically amplify” viewpoints to readers? ¿So you make viewpoints louder by making them fit together as a whole? ¿How does that work? It seems that absorbing viewpoints should make them stand out less, as the whole o’ them is emphasized ‘stead. By definition, if the whole is emphasized, then the pieces are not.

[…] using a hybrid model that incorporates the best aspects of social networking and publishing.

This has filler words: there’s no use in specifying that it’s “hybrid” when you later state that it’s a mix o’ 2 things; a mix o’ 2 things, by definition, is a hybrid.

Enabled by their proprietary technology, Odyssey’s “relevance engine” matches users with content they want to see […]

Translation: Odyssey has a search function.

allowing them to lead conversations and drive engagement for a highly authentic experience.

(Laughs) Yes, “driving engagement” through the “proprietary technology” o’ “relevance engines” does, indeed, doesn’t sound artificial @ all.

Our technology platform expands upon the traditional content model by fostering the creation, editing, distribution and consumption of world voices, while simultaneously amplifying them through organic social sharing.

Your “technology platform” expands upon the traditional model by doing exactly what they do. The only innovation is apparently that you allow people to eat other people’s voices, which is admittedly impressive & intriguing. I always wanted to know the taste o’ a raspy Scandinavian voice.

Marrying precise context with dynamic relevance […]

Here’s that liberal media going too far in their war on conservative values. Gay marriage wasn’t ‘nough; now they’re trying to push legalizing the marriage ‘tween abstract concepts. ¡The whole world is falling apart!

Odyssey is the only platform that allows people to seamlessly see and engage with different viewpoints on topics of interest to them from thousands of creators, all in one place.

Bullshit.

It’s clear that the writer o’ this has almost no knowledge o’ how the internet works. Every social media site or forum does this, stupid. You haven’t invented flying cars here, bud.

By providing its users with a 360° view of their interests […]

¡Ha, ha, ha! ¿So you offer viewpoints that are in the same position o’ their interests, but went in a pointless circle before reaching that point? So, ¿for a liberal would that be someone who starts to consider conservatism, but then by the end decide, nah, it’s stupid, liberalism is the smart viewpoint?

Odyssey expands their vantage point, fostering thoughtful conversation through its highly social and engaged community.

Well, I’m relived that this community is “highly social.” I hope Odyssey offers other such innovations–like wet water or round circles.

We reach more than 30M monthly users and growing, with more than 14,000 selectively chosen creators contributing to the platform.

Yeah, you didn’t selectively choose 14,000 people. Bullshit.

&, hey, I thought you were “democratized.” A tiny group o’ rich people selectively appointing people doesn’t sound like “democracy” to me.

O, ¿who am I kidding? That’s pretty much what “democracy” means in most countries, anyway.

We go down further, & then… ¡Ah!

Advertise With Us

Odyssey specializes in engaging display, native content, and video through our platform. We help brands to understand and engage with our audience at a national level, or with targeted location or topical reach. Because of our vast community of 12,000+ millennial influencers and content creators, we are able to help brands generate and access focus groups and insights from the very target audience they’re marketing to. The same power that a crowdsourcing platform enables in reflecting a diversity of perspectives and views can also be applied to generating a variety of native content and ideas to help your brand resonate with millennials.

Ah, now we see its true mission statement: fool a bunch o’ gullible people to make free content for them to profit off through ads, without giving said gullible people a slice o’ that money, despite doing all the work–also known as “exploitation.” Why one would want to go through the trouble o’ being “selectively chosen” so they can have the right to make things for someone else to profit off & get nothing for oneself when one could just as easily create one’s own blog & keep all the ad profits for oneself is a mystery for the millennium–but my prime hypothesis is that such people are idiots.

Still, I can’t doubt their skills in providing “focus groups and insights from the very target audience [brands are] marketing to.” I know ditzes posting mindless list poems ’bout why one shouldn’t commit suicide says a lot ’bout whether or not millennials like Coca-Cola. Maybe the marketers o’ cyanide pills will add sunset pictures to the packaging, thinking that sunsets are highly liked by the suicidal market.

Also, I wouldn’t be proud o’ being called “The Most Exciting Company […] Seen Since BuzzFeed.” ‘Cause nothing’s mo’ exciting than a website that posts lists o’ random shit someone came up with in a second.

Also, Ad Exchanger’s article, “How To Monetize Relevant And Engaging Content? Reward Creators,” might be mo’ relevant if you actually rewarded your creators in any way–other than telling them with a smile that they’re great.

AlleyWatch: “This NYC Start-Up Just Raised $25 To Do This For Millennials.” Thanks to NYC Start-Up’s parents for graciously offering them their monthly allowance to “do this” for millennials–& by millenials, they mean the NYC Start-Up’s stockholders, which consists o’ 1 guy, his siblings, & their cat. Also, ¿what’s this have to do with alleys, AlleyWatch?

Gray wakes up.
Trees molt feathers.
Whistle for wind.