I thought I’d ’scaped politics till next November, but looking up vital information on Lederhosen Luigi in some new Mario Kart thing I otherwise don’t care ’bout caused me to stumble on this juicy bit o’ conservative news that the liberal lame-pee media won’t tell you:

“Conservatives decry media coverage of Biden playing Mario Kart and his dogs after four years of critical Trump headlines”.

That is from the Washington Examiner, which sounds like it’s a conservative bootleg o’ the Washington Post — which means we have to do the unfathomable & imagine a newspaper with e’en lower standards than the Bezos in the Trap Post. I can’t wait till they sell themselves to eBay.

As the title hints, this article is nothing mo’ than the writer whining vicariously thru “conservatives” ’cause a newspaper wrote a fluff piece, like they always do for non-fascist presidents, ’bout Biden-His-Time, the most generic o’ Presidents, whose greatest achievement as President, in fact, was playing as best Mario character Luigi in Mario Kart. This is in contrast to all the negative coverage they had gainst TV star who stumbled himself into the presidency thru memes & almost sparked an insurrection &, mo’ importantly, ne’er played as Luigi in Mario Kart, Donald Trump. Conservatives, which, those o’ us with memories stronger than goldfish recall, hated Trump when they expected him to blow their chance to beat Clinton till he managed to stumble into a surprise victory, after which conservatives fell o’er themselves to suddenly start sucking his wrinkled balls, can’t fathom that the reason newspapers have such a stark bias gainst a president who sat by while millions o’ US citizens died o’ a disease whose containment they actively tried to sabotage is ’cause there is an authentic inequality in quality ’tween the 2 — which says something dire ’bout their precious beloved, since Biden isn’t e’en B-tier. Only absolute scrubs play as Biden; you wanna play, you better pick Abraham Lincoln — or Luigi, ’course — in Final Destination with no items, or you better get the fuck outta Super American Bros. Melee. But just like how scrubs who can’t figure out how to wavedash want Melee trophies — wait, no they don’t; only nerds still care ’bout that 20-year-ol’ game — conservatives want their participation trophies simply for having a president, e’en tho they constantly criticize other people for s’posedly wanting participatory trophies.

Try convincing me there is no such thing as liberal media bias. https://t.co/wd5jqYiKYT

— Rep. Jeff Duncan (@RepJeffDuncan) February 16, 2021

Fun social experiment: show this Tweet to someone outside o’ the US — maybe someone @ Nintendo o’ Japan — & watch them stare @ you in confusion. You people outside the US don’t realize it, but Mario Kart is sacred to our culture.

What’s funniest is that this article contradicts its own main point when it writes:

Melissa Cooke, Politico’s communications director, told the Washington Examiner that the outlet “is committed to vigorously holding the Biden administration to account — to the same standard that we have covered previous administrations.” She added that since Biden’s inauguration, Politico has reported stories about how Biden’s aim to isolate China on coal could blow back on the U.S. and about how Democrats are preparing for heartburn over Biden’s immigration plan.

Politico is, in fact, so determined to compromise & find some kind o’ fake balance ’tween moderate conservative Democrats & fascist Republicans that they manufactured flaws for Biden, like that some vague immigration plan o’ his will magically cause people heartburn, which doesn’t e’en make any sense. The Washington Examiner could’ve bitched ’bout other newspapers & been accurate if they just stuck with the simpler hypothesis that newspaper articles are written by morons with nothing insightful to say. After all, reading that he played this at Camp David indicates that he was there for something to do with the US involvement in the very controversial conflict ’tween Israel & Palestine. Maybe that would be something to discuss & what Biden-His-Time’s doing there. ¡I’m sure it’s playing “Imagine” for everyone & telling everyone “Give peace a chance, guys” & not giving mo’ money to the Israeli military ( money we definitely don’t have for single-payer health insurance or student debt forgiveness ) so the fun war games will ne’er stop! Perhaps Biden & his daughter should’ve played Call of Duty ’stead, to be mo’ fitting. & perhaps this super-serious newspaper should be deeply embarrassed that wacky blog ’bout Italian Plumber video games, poetry that seems like it’s written by a madman, & such savvy political commentary as jokes ’bout zombie Karl Marx & made-up religions like “Magical Socialism” or “laissez-faire economics” saw fit to discuss such a serious topic mo’ than they did. If conservatives want, they can read actually left-wing newspapers like The Nation, who do criticize Biden for, true to his name, biding his time on Israel policies or watch Noam Chomsky, who has apparently transformed into Gandalf the White in the last few years, @ Democracy Now criticize Biden for his jingo-red-meat policies gainst China & Iran, as well as Palestine. Turns out the solution to the “lamestream liberal media” is to read better newspapers.

But for the Washington Examiner, who sees fit mo’ to whine ’bout the “liberal media” that apparently has no problem with feeding racist wars ’tween 2 theocracies that worship the same imaginary god in the middle east like cockfighters & eats up jingo-red-meat for dinner every night for not criticizing Biden for… for what, they don’t say, since they ne’er bring up a real issue @ all ( I’m sure conservatives are staunchly gainst US involvement in these wars or the trade wars with China or their hypocritical dick-waving in front o’ Iran, considering how much their idol Trump… also did that shit ), that would be pot calling kettle black ( & conservatives are ne’er hypocrites, so that would be an impossibility ). You can’t blame newspapers ’cause they, gainst their will, live in a reality racist ’nough gainst conservatives to make the Democrat president not have nearly as exciting failures as the Republican president. Maybe if you guys elect a president who isn’t a complete fuck-up for once & only funds wars, rather than feed wars & do a lot o’ other terrible things, too, you can get your fluff pieces ’bout your president playing Fortnite @ an Afghan graveyard or some shit nobody cares ’bout ’cause only Boomers read newspapers.

This article doesn’t help Trump’s case, anyway:

The media has also overwhelmingly lauded the Bidens for bringing two dogs into the White House after Trump’s tenure saw no pets.

If conservatives can’t fathom the difference in inner integrity ’tween people who have cuddly pets & those who don’t, then they’re just hopeless nihilists.

While a headline from the Washington Post published on Tuesday reads, “Power Up: Scrunchies and dog walking: the country gets a taste of Jill Biden’s radical normalcy.”

It’s almost as if most o’ the country is revolting gainst the brain dead daytime TV show conservatives have been trying to turn the US into thru their assembly line o’ talking bobbleheads spouting moronic extreme rhetoric in desperation for their 5 minutes o’ attention.

The Washington Examiner then talks ’bout how vague “conservatives” — ¡not them, ’course, ’cause they’re unbiased & objective, unlike these other newspapers! ¡Buy a subscription for only $29.99 a month & get a free mug! — have no real problems unlike the islanders who are ’bout to drown thanks to climate change bolstered by the tax cuts given to coal companies passed by inherently repugnant conservatives & spend their time whining ’bout the media’s bias in favor o’ Biden’s wife, an Ed.D who runs a breath-health-awareness nonprofit gainst Melania Trump, a fashion model who dropped out after 1 year o’ college. It’s almost as if people literate ’nough to write for newspapers prefer educated people who do useful things for the world. This is just like all the times the liberal media showed bias in favor o’ immunologists when discussing COVID o’er what Uncle Roger barks ’bout on his Twitter page. The liberal media should feel ashamed o’ themselves for having such racist “standards”, as they call them.

If Trump was President this tweet would mention thousands dying of COVID as he played and freezing from a huge winter storm with no power. 🤔🧐 https://t.co/0IF210c8SJ

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) February 16, 2021

“If this were a shittier president who utterly failed in the time o’ crisis, they would be accurately pointing out their failure ’stead o’ accurately discussing how boring this mo’ boring president is. ¡Damn the liberal media & their belief in individual responsibility! ¡Why can’t they just blame Democrats for bad things Republicans do already!”.

All I can say is that this is a great advertisement for the Washington Examiner. I can’t wait to spend my hard-earned money listening to entitled people whine ’cause mo’ & mo’ people are becoming smart ’nough to not respect them anymo’. This is worth so much mo’ money than the same insipid shit I can get for free on Reddit.

Update:

I happened to stumble ’pon news o’ Biden-His-Time doing something maybe, possibly better than playing as Luigi in Mario Kart:

“Biden responds to report that Trump tested positive for COVID before their debate: ‘I don’t think about the former president’”.

Good idea: maybe we should all stop thinking ’bout former presidents who don’t play as Luigi in Mario Kart.

I oft make blog rounds in search for things to write ‘bout & decided to check on Lord Keynes’s continuing brain rot into what could only be called “reactionary liberalism” — moderate liberal economics matched with backward social politics. I guess this was popular in the 50s, when many European countries had that postwar boom o’ theirs. That Nordic countries are now doing the best while also being the most socially liberal & some o’ the most tolerant o’ foreign cultures breaks this crude “causation = correlation”, but whatever.

Anyway, I was hoping I’d finally see our precious Hairpiece-supporter eat crow & admit that the President who supported tax cuts, tried to sabotage Obamacare, & is now planning to slice food stamps isn’t the “Keynesian” gainst that vile neoclassical, Clinton, who wouldn’t have done these things. But, ‘course, he’s been conspicuously silent on Hairpiece for the past year or so. There has been plenty o’ racist woo masquerading as science, by cranks like Charles Murray — the Bell Curve guy, whose conclusions based on ( accurate, but not new ) statistics are illogical & based on backward biology. Same goes for Nicholas Wade, not a scientist @ all, whose book has been refuted by most o’ the actual scientists whose research he cited.

But then, that’s easy to keep up without refutation: just declare any refutation, no matter how much evidence is ’hind it, as being “liberal-biased”, or whatever the Realist Left™ equivalent is, based on some sentimental inability to see cold, hard reality. That this is the same thought process that Keynes mocked conservative economists for is rich in irony. I will settle for discovering a new logical fallacy: “Appeal to Bad Consequences”, the opposite o’ “Appeal to Consequences”. This is the idea that we should believe in something that’s ugly ’cause it’s ugly, regardless o’ evidence or reality, ’cause this makes us feel “stronger” & less sentimental. ( That proponents o’ these ideas are ne’er harmed themselves by these “harsh truths”, we need not focus on… )

Anyway, I got bored o’ that, & was planning on just moving ‘long, till I stumbled ‘pon him complaining ‘bout some conservative neoclassical tract on economics, which I just used as a platform to muse on what I feel to be the weakness o’ all economic “schools”, Post-Keynesianism included.

(1) “Wealth is not Money”.

This is a meaningless “lesson”, since “wealth” is a vague idea. E’en Lord Keynes falls into ol’-fashioned assumptions like all other economic pundits. He defined “wealth” as “the good [sic] and services we consume”. “Consume” itself is vague: it implies that the “good” or “service” ( ¿how do you eat a “service”? ) is destroyed as one uses it. ¿So if I pay to use something that isn’t destroyed, like living on land for a temporary period, is that “wealth”, or something different?

Money cannot be consumed in the way that commodities can.

Actually, money can be used the same way commodities are. There’s nothing stopping some particularly creative fellow from eating money. Most people just don’t ‘cause in most current societies money has greater value in a different use.

A mo’ serious example: commemorative coins are money, but they are simply used as collectible commodities ( which means they could be bad for the economy, since it’s money that’s added to “currency”, but doesn’t actually run in it, which s’posedly creates inflation; but the connection ‘tween adding money to the economy & inflation are much mo’ mixed — ‘specially since some dollars inevitably get destroyed in the violent scramble to grab them all when they’re dropped from Friedman’s helicopter ).

Libertarians are fond [ sic ] accusing Keynesians of saying that “money is wealth” or that “money creation is wealth creation.”

In a society where there exist mo’ than a few people who believe ( or say they believe ) that the Democrats are touching kiddies in their hoo-haws in Chuck-E-Cheese, it’s not that hard to believe that quite a lot o’ people believe things ‘bout other things simply ‘cause they ne’er deign to actually read such works — which means that any correction will also go unread, making it futile.

But I can’t even recall seeing any left heterodox economists who even say this. The maxim that money is not everything – which many people on the Left are fond of saying – is even a subtle admission of the point.

Both Keynesians & neoclassicals do claim that money is value ( or, in connection, that demand is value ), through their hypocritically-named “subjective theory o’ value”, which is just as wrong.

This is not a lie, since I can use Lord Keynes’s own words to prove it in his immensely flawed critique o’ the immensely flawed labor theory:

In modern economics, value is normally exchange value, that is, something has an economic value when it is traded or bought as a commodity in a market.

“Economic value” is market demand ‘cause it’s specifically defined that way, making “economic value” tautological & meaningless.

&…

It is the demand for goods caused by the subjective desires of people that is the cause of value, not labour.

If one believes that demand — the willingness to pay money for something — creates value, then the only logical conclusion one can make is that creating mo’ money gives people mo’ money to pay, & therefore mo’ value to create. That’s obviously absurd, just as the idea that people wanting things magically makes it appear is absurd.

Anyone with any sense would realize that if value is subjective, then the means to create value is subjective, & therefore can’t be narrowed down to any 1 grand thing — including money or labor. For instance, price can make something mo’ valuable if I want something expensive to show off how rich I am, or for any other social reason. Similarly, I may value something simply ‘cause I worked hard on it, which means that labor did create that thing’s value, & nobody can tell me that I’m wrong ‘cause they have no objective basis on which to judge my values.

To show you how ridiculous this claim is, remember that Lord’s Keynes’s blog doesn’t sell for any price on any market — it has no demand. Lord Keynes is saying outright that his blog has no value.

Some may protest that economists are only talking ‘bout “commodities” — “economic value”. That is to say that economists, both Keynesian & neoclassical ( & Orthodox Marxist¹ & Austrian, actually — which is to say, all economists ), prove the market to be integral to economics ( both good & bad ), by simply refusing to acknowledge economics outside o’ the market — that good ol’ “La, la, la, I can’t hear you” argument ( or as they say it in economic parlance, “We don’t talk ‘bout that thing, e’en though it’s perfectly relevant & we truly ought to, ‘cause it might make us question our assumptions like true scientists” ).

(2) “The Economy is not a Zero Sum Competition”.

Lord Keynes’s critique isn’t bad — & his general conclusion that it’s a mix is just ‘bout right. But his examples are a small speck o’ what could be said in this immensely complex issue. He focuses on small, isolated examples like gambling, & 1 major ( but still not fundamental ) example, finance. I have much mo’ fundamental problems with it.

The most important problem with this idea is that it contradicts subjective value: if value can be anything anyone deems it to be, then basic logic tells us that either there must be cases where certain values conflict with others, creating a zero-sum game, or that we can all get anything we want at the same time, which is obvious fantasy.

This is so hypocritical ‘cause this argument is used to argue gainst certain people’s values. People use this to argue gainst things like economic redistribution; ¿but what if I highly value relative wealth? Then I can either have my value or economists can have theirs — we have a zero-sum game.

‘Gain, economists try to argue that value is only their narrow “economic value”, but it isn’t: value is anything — economic, political, spiritual, aesthetic, personal, emotional, psychological, technological, social… Economics affects all these things, so economists can’t ignore these if they want to talk ‘bout economics in a complete way. If an economy that creates lots o’ “economic value” conflicts with, say, an equal society with high “political value”, then these 2 contradict each other & one must pick 1. For economists to say that they prefer “economic value” simply ‘cause they’re economists is to say that economists are just arbitrary pundits — propagandists. A true scientist isn’t objective within “their particular field”, but o’er everything.

(3) “International Trade is not a Zero Sum Game.

This involves the typical moderate-left critique that Lord Keynes’s readers should already be sick o’ reading a million times. The fundamental idea that he hints at, but doesn’t specifically say, is that neoclassical “efficiency” assumes that efficiency comes from minimizing costs now, disregarding the long-term ( which is ironic, considering their strawman criticism o’ Keynes & his economically-poisonous homosexuality — ne’er live down that classic, Forbes ). This applies in general to any “race to the bottom” situation.

He points out that this idea relies on the assumption that workers can retrain instantly. This is true, but ironically falls into the same problem he criticizes elsewhere: that efficiency must come immediately. It’s perfectly consistent to acknowledge both that workers can’t retrain instantly but that they should for long-term efficiency — e’en when things change rapidly. A perfect example is an industry I’m quite familiar with, web design. That’s an industry wherein workers voluntarily retrain themselves constantly ‘cause they see that in most cases taking the extra time to learn new things is worth lessening e’en mo’ time spent doing the same thing that can be automated from what they learned. Not only that, but retraining can actually in itself be a mo’ rewarding type o’ work, since it adds variety to something that’d otherwise be monotonous — it ironically takes them outside o’ the assembly line that capitalism is notorious for — & ‘cause learning is developing, personal growth.

‘Course, middle-class web developers are quite different from the working class. For 1, web development isn’t a particularly capitalist industry: there is relatively low capital investment ( the education needed is probably a’least 40 times the cost; the rest is just a computer, software, — which you can just download open-source or pirate — & internet ), & thus much mo’ competition. Most web development “businesses” are individuals or groups working for their own salary. Thus, they benefit directly from the efficiency.

The problem with this effect on working class people is the same problem the effect that “efficiency” has on a country in general: there’s no guarantee that all parties will be allowed to share in the efficiency. It’s not that workers shouldn’t retrain to mo’ efficient skills; it’s that in real-world economics, workers aren’t given the option; they’re just laid off & sent into unemployment, where they don’t have the resources to retrain.

In this situation, like many, both neoclassicals & Keynesians are wrong on the solution: the solution is neither to let a tiny few rich people get e’en mo’ money while the majority are made worse off or to stifle development to benefit the majority, but to use government funds to keep poor people healthy & well ( both physically & mentally ) — think a mandatory minimum living salary, or whatever they call it — while offering them tools to retrain them so they can get better jobs.

The failure to understand the efficiency & social benefits o’ this idea come from a common contradictory sentiment: 1. the ( right ) idea that efficiency comes not from working mo’, but from working less — rather that labor creating value, eliminating labor is what creates the most value, & 2. the idea that we should demand people work to make money, else we’ll be inefficient. That workers being unemployed to train off the government dole so that they can do mo’ productive work in the future is mo’ efficient than having them continue to do work they’re not good at doing as others is beyond them, which is strange, since this is how college works for many people.

This particularly annoys me ‘cause these jobs that these modern Luddite Keynesians try to keep are the kind that are least appropriate for humans. The kind o’ jobs that can be automated are the most mind-numbingly dumb & monotonous — hence why mentally inferior machines can do them. While socialists bemoan the inhuman way capitalists turn workers into cogs in a machine, ¡Keynesians panic that humans won’t be able to be cogs anymo’! ( But then, Keynesians have ne’er had much respect for working-class people, so maybe they’re not so interested in treating them like fellow humans as they are protecting the stability o’ their own station ).

This leads to a central conundrum for philosophers to debate: what’s worse, an Austrian dystopia where workers are starved off, or a Keynesian dystopia where workers are trapped in a dour living that makes them wish for death.

His claim that Ricardo’s 3rd point, “it does not matter what you produce (e.g., you could produce pottery), as long as you do it in a way that gives you comparative advantage” is “utter nonsense” is vague. ¿Is he claiming that certain goods are intrinsically better than others? ( i.e. that value is objective ). It’s amazing how much a tricky idea like value being subjective can utterly trip up economists everywhere.

He also seems to assume that manufacturing is where true economic development comes from, which is ( ironicly, considering his repeated criticism ) an outdated Marxist idea. If value is subjective, than “development” is just as much — ‘specially when that “development” comes @ huge environmental costs. Much as efficiency comes from minimizing labor, not making more o’ it, efficiency comes mo’ from creating value from as li’l manufacturing as possible, rather than trying to maximize it. Thus, the obvious reason developed countries, which are still much better off than developing countries, are mo’ & mo’ “service-based” economies.

Despite Lord Keynes’s racist conspiracies, developing countries aren’t outsmarting developed countries; developed countries as wholes are still benefiting mo’ from shifting their dirty industries to poorer countries while keeping most o’ the profits within the developed countries — e’en in the long run. E’en if we acknowledge that only a tiny minority o’ rich westerners benefit from the profits, basic logic would tell you that redistributing this larger chunk o’ wealth to the displaced working class is better than forcing working class people to work crappy jobs for a ( almost certainly smaller ) share o’ a smaller chunk o’ wealth while people in developing countries starve from a lack o’ jobs for themselves.

An e’en better, though unlikely, solution: make laws that force western businesses to pay foreign workers a minimum wage & have western standards o’ safety & worker well being & foreign workers will lose their competitive “advantage” while also allowing foreign workers to make mo’ money & develop their economies mo’ so that they don’t have to rely on western companies for technology just so their people don’t starve — but then, we have to remember that in Lord Keynes’s fever dreams, Chinese workers are living like kings with their wonderful 12-hour sewing jobs without safety regulations while unemployed westerners with better safety nets are the true victims.

Or maybe it’s that protectionists like Lord Keynes don’t care ’bout Chinese people, or the rest o’ the vast majority o’ working class people who aren’t a part o’ the narrow western 17%. Then ’gain, considering LK’s views on women’s rights, that would include half o’ that percentage, & e’en less considering his views on nonwhites — quite a niche populism you have there, LK. It would seem absurd to anyone who wants to defend the lowest classes ( not white, male westerners ) or the mass majority ( also not white, male westerners ), which is what that word “leftism” that LK likes to claim himself to be the only true follower o’ has traditionally meant… ¡till they realize that questioning this makes them on the side o’ the corrupt neoclassical bourgeosie Nazis! ( The most transparent o’ ad-hominem is also serious empirical science that the silly SJW poopy-heads refuse to acknoledge ).

(4) Say’s Law.

His critique here is absurd & hypocritical. He notes that “The Academic Agent” defines Say’s Law differently from Keynes & his worshippers & acknowledges that many economists agree that Say himself didn’t believe in what Keynes claimed was “his” law, but then asserts that Keynes’s definition is the right 1, ‘cause he’s God apparently. He then diverts the subject to Keynes’s critique o’ how Adam Smith & John Stuart Mills interpreted “Say’s Law”, with 1 point also believed by Ricardo. This adds a hitch to Lord Keynes’s critique: this is s’posed to be an o’er-all attack on classical & neoclassical economics, which are s’posedly very similar; but neoclassicals reject “Say’s Law”, since they have incorporated some elements o’ Keynesianism. &, in fact, not e’en all o’ what Keynes called “classical” is included here, ‘cause classical socialists like Proudhon & Marx also didn’t believe in “Say’s Law”.

But he doesn’t go far ‘nough in his critique gainst whatever “The Academic Agent” claims is “Say’s Law”: “(2) supply and demand are not independent of one another, but dependent in the sense that factor payments by producers or income to producers provide the source of demand for other goods.”. He claims that “no serious economist even disputes” this, but only adds that “credit money” adds to demand. Since demand is based on money paid for things, this should be obvious ( it’s supply that it has the risk o’ hurting by creating too much consumption, a problem rare in developed countries, but still real in developing countries, as Venezuela shows ). Not only is this point vague on what counts as a “producer” or what “sense” these are dependent, it’s limited: maybe payment to “producers” can provide demand — if they chose to buy things. Since this is a point Keynes made, it’s odd that the Lord o’ Keynes neglects to mention this.

(5) “Every part of the economy is connected to the whole of economy… .” [ I have no idea why this period & ellipsis are formatted so oddly ]

“Connected” is so vague, it’s meaningless, & this is clearly a “law” that can be “proven” by twisting the word “connected” so that this point is proven by it. I’m not e’en sure what context this is based on — ¿what concrete point is it trying to prove?

Lord Keynes’s rebuke seems ridiculous:

While this is true, this does not vindicate Léon Walras’ Neoclassical economics, which “The Academic Agent” cites as his source for this insight, which has quite specific assertions about capitalist economies.

“Walras may be right ‘bout this thing, but his other irrelevant ideas are wrong”.

I actually looked @ the video, — it’s such strong Dunning-Kruger syndrome that I can’t bear to watch the whole thing — & the video glosses o’er “general equilibrium” & ’stead talks ’bout e’en stupider shit, all in haphazard trawls o’ logic. ¿Why doesn’t LK make fun o’ this other stuff? For instance, he complains ’bout how interest caps s’posedly mostly affects poor people being able to get loans ( no evidence, or e’en Libertarian-style simplistic “logic”, to back that up — like most o’ this video, it’s just a Biblical commandment ), e’en though the 2008 recession showed exactly why blocking poor people from getting loans they can’t pay back may be very much positive. He also parrots Milton Friedman ( who isn’t a classical economist ) saying, “There’s no such thing as free lunch”, which is 1 o’ those sayings that sounds profound, but is vague & almost certainly wrong. Saying that you can’t gain without loss is equivalent to saying that there’s no such thing as profit or growth, which is obviously wrong & contradicts point 2: if every gain comes with an equal cost, then the sum will be 0. Either “The Academic Agent” didn’t proof-read his smug shit or he doesn’t understand basic math. Either way, “The Academic Agent” should stick with foiling terrorist plots by Blofeld in exotic countries & leave economic thought to people who bother to read their own work, much less the work o’ other economists.

[B]oth Austrian and Neoclassical theory ultimately hold that free markets have a tendency towards general equilibrium

He’s mistaken ‘bout Austrian-schoolers — something he should be well aware o’, since he wrote ’bout it before. Many Austrian-schoolers acknowledge that their incoherent conception o’ “free” markets can go into disequilibrium; they simply say that this is just ‘nother example o’ capitalism’s marvelous mysteriousness. The INVISIBLE HAND works in mysterious ways.

No mention, by the way, o’ how inconsistent the concept o’ a “free” market is that we can’t e’en truly define it in a concrete, cohesive way — we just use a jargon word. “Freedom”, ‘course, is a paradoxical concept, since it requires force to keep round, which is why e’en the “freest” countries have police & governments. Economies, too, need governments to run them, or else some other authority just as authoritarian will take its place in the ensuing vacuum.

[M]arket systems are complex human systems subject to degrees of non-calculable probability and future uncertainty

The question no economic school, e’en Post-Keynesians, has the bravery to answer: if economics is so subjective, so non-calculable, & so uncertain, ¿how could anyone devise an objective, certain science that could predict ways to make society better off in the future? This should not lead one to Post-Keynesianism, but an anti-economics — a complete deconstruction o’ the whole branch, just as a “Science o’ Art” has been rendered nonsensical.

(6) “Marginal Utility”.

“The Academic Agent” ends with pointing out the “value” in the sense of desiring or evaluating commodities is subjective. This is true, but does not take you very far.

It takes one quite far if they actually follow it consistently. The problem is that every bozo who squawks ‘bout value being subjective — Marxists included, by the way — then falls onto their own pet preference for the “true” source o’ value & simultaneously proclaims it objective.

He’s right on diminishing returns, though: it mostly applies, but not always, & doesn’t refute government intervention. In fact, applied to money itself ( which is logical — you know the story ‘bout the person so rich they use $ bills as tissue ), it shows that income redistribution literally creates value. This applies intuitively, too: a poor person can have their whole world rocked by gaining just $1000, while someone in the upper 1% whole hardly notice if they gained it or lost it. A minuscule loss paired with a huge gain is the very definition o’ efficiency.

One thing that bugs me ‘bout Post-Keynesians is that they love parroting the same tiny, isolated points in their disparate soup o’ a framework, but don’t go deeper than the floor panels under the carpet. They blow up ‘bout “endogenous money”, prices being based on the cost o’ production rather than supply & demand ( ne’ermind that they already debunk neoclassical supply & demand, making this point redundant ), & all those hokey moral plays by their god Keynes, but ignore the deeper problems with market economics in general that make the foundation ‘pon these questions debatable themselves. Post-Keynesians still treat money in the same superstitious way every other economist does², as if it follows natural laws & isn’t something humans made up. ( That this invention may be practical is fine to acknowledge — but debating whether a human invention works a certain way as if it had gained sentience & turned gainst its master like AI is ridiculous ).

In short, I’m sick o’ all these conservatives scribbling out how their narrow laws ‘bout how their “capitalism” works when run by robots with no self-awareness; I want to know ‘bout economics its fundamental self.

Addendum

I mostly wrote ’bout this blog article, not the video, ’cause I couldn’t stand the video, but can I reiterate how ignorant the video is ’bout the history o’ economics. I’m not e’en saying what he’s saying is wrong ( it’s definitely made-up assumptions worthy o’ a religious Bible ): he mixes up the history o’ the development o’ economic thought, mixing up neoclassical & classical economics. Ironically, this mixup comes from that devil himself, Keynes, who admits he pulled the definition out o’ his ass. E’en mo’ ironic, the term “classical economist” originates from that e’en mo’ devilish o’ devils, Karl Marx; & his main basis for definition was belief in the so-called labor theory, which this video doesn’t mention @ all.

So LK writes this blog post as if he’s arguing gainst some serious economists, & I finally realize that it’s just some fringe crank on the YooToobs right next to videos o’ 20-year-ols screaming @ their video games who read some fringe crank websites from some think tanks & think they actually know anything ’bout economics.

It also took me this long to realize it’s a fucking listicle video, too. I’ll stick to YouTube Poop next time, LK. Thanks, though.

¿Where did Vanity Fair get the silly idea that they had any brain cells to talk ’bout politics. Stick to interviewing brain dead actors, please.

Internet clickbait promotes mental tooth decay[.]

“Duh, ¿what’s a mixed metaphor? I don’t have to think when I write figurative language, ¿do I? ¡But that’s too hard!” That’s right up there with “rectal cancer of the mouth” in sense-making.

If Donald Trump speaks Jerkish, according to retired novelist Philip Roth, Jones’s broadside was written in Snarkish:

If your biggest complaint ’bout a president dangerously ignorant o’ basic science & who inspires rises o’ hate crimes is that he “speaks Jerkish”, you are a pampered dipshit & need to get o’er your fucking self. If your biggest complaint ’bout a blogger is that they spoke “snarkish”… ¡You’re speaking “snarkish”! ¡& stupid!, which is e’en worse.

“That I should live to see the day when Meryl Streep’s speechifying at a Hollywood awards show is admired as solemnly and discussed as fervently as Lincoln’s second inaugural address is a personal nightmare. Lectured by Streep! And about how her and all her Hollywood pals, decked out in everything that costs the earth and sparkles in the spotlight, are among the true victims of Donald Trump’s American authoritarianism!”

Sounds right to me.

Vanity Fair: “¡How dare this… snarkish person be insensitive to the plights o’ the rich & airheaded! ¡Do you have any idea o’ how much I bled to come up with that whipped cream metaphor!”

Streep’s chastising of Trump in her acceptance speech at the Golden Globes was derided as a sniffy display of royal hauteur, as if her ladyship had gotten her blue sash in a twist.

No, ’twas rightfully mocked for being self-indulgent & airheaded. The irony is that it’s the lack o’ pretentious inanity in the critics that’d make them ne’er write something as inane as this sentence.

But here’s the twist: Eileen Jones is no righty coveting a rotation spot in the Fox News greenroom. She teaches film at Berkeley—and you know what it’s like at Berkeley, radical fervor springing from every hair follicle—”

Stereotypes are the best political points to make. “Duh, there’s no right-wingers in Berkeley like there are no liberals in Texas”.

We also have a naive cliché: that leftists making fun o’ airheaded celebrities who exploit anti-rightwing rhetoric for their own shallow interests is rare. It isn’t; we’ve been making fun o’ you for decades.

[A]nd her Streep denunciation was published in Jacobin, which bills itself as “a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture.”

They have standards almost as low as Vanity Fair.

Disillusionment with Obama’s presidency, loathing of Hillary Clinton, disgust with “identity politics,” and a craving for a climactic reckoning that will clear the stage for a bold tomorrow have created a kinship between the “alt-right” and an alt-left.

Interesting. Here, let me try:

With their use o’ ad-hominem association attacks gainst political enemies with popularly reviled figures based on superficial similarities, their focus on label-based attacks rather than descriptive analyses, such as “alt-left” or “commie”, & their use o’ pretentious, empty buzzwords to hide the lack o’ substance in their arguments, Vanity Fair has created a kinship with the alt-right.

The “[d]isillusionment with Obama’s presidency” isn’t e’en right. The alt-right wasn’t “disillusioned” with Obama ’cause they ne’er liked him, dipshit. As for the “disgust with ‘identity politics’”, yeah, Jacobin shows it — when it’s appropriated by the alt-right. ’Course, Vanity Fair doesn’t bother to actually give a link showing any evidence that this nebulous “alt-left” hates “identity politics” or offers a definition o’ what that nebulous phrase is s’posed to mean. Presumably he’s accusing Jacobin & the rest o’ the “alt-left” o’ being bigoted — without any evidence to back it up.

Like I said: stick to interviews with rich idiots talking ’bout their fancy dresses. That’s all this ditz has the brain power for.

They’re not kissin’ cousins, but they caterwaul some of the same tunes in different keys.

Read: “They’re not actually allies, but I found some superficial similarities”. E’en he acknowledges he’s a liar.

The alt-right receives the meatiest share of attention in the media, as it should.

Yeah, ’cause what hurt the alt-right so hard was too much attention. That’s why they try to avoid it as much as possible.

I can’t get o’er how li’l political savvy this idiot has.

It’s powerful, vicious, steeped in neo-Nazi ideology, nativist white supremacy, men’s-rights misogyny, and Ayn Rand capitalist übermensch mythos […]

Um, ¿what evidence is there that Hairpiece was particularly popular with Objectivists? Most I’ve read hate that evil socialist ’cause they’re crazy, take any tepid criticism o’ excess neoliberal economics as being “socialist”, & forget that their own god was a crony who profited off politics & used government funds for her cigarette-fed medical bills. ( Shocking how an ideology that praises selfishness & narcissism would lead people to be narcissistic hypocrites who praise their own actions done for purely selfish reasons while attacking others who do the same as “corrupt” ).

The alt-left can’t match that for strength, malignancy, or tentacled reach, but its dude-bros and “purity progressives” exert a powerful reality-distortion field online and foster factionalism on the lib-left.

As opposed to Vanity Fair, which slipped up in that sentence before & pretty much acknowledged that they’re being propagandist liars.

“The alt-left isn’t actually as bad as the alt-right; but some empty terms I made up trick people into thinking… ¿they’re similar?” ¿How are they “distorting” reality? ¿By being bigots? ¿Are they somehow tricking other leftists into being bigots? That’s not necessarily deceitful. It’d be a lot smarter to actually start with the examples, & then give the conclusions, so I don’t assume you’re full o’ shit. But I’m gonna guess you won’t e’er give any arguments.

The closest we get to an argument is “dude-bros”, presumably a reference to “Bernie Bro” pro-Bernie bigots. ¿Why not focus on them? ¿& what evidence is there that Jacobin supports them?

Interestingly, Jacobin, through Matt Bruenig, does provide statistics that show that Bernie had ’bout the same even male-female ratio as Clinton in terms to support. You have no idea how refreshing it is to see actual data & proof, & not just a bunch o’ clunky mixed metaphors & bitching.

Sorry for a second: I have to relocate my place in the Vanity Fair article ’cause it keeps moving me round ’cause their web design, like most big newspapers, is shit. The ratio o’ actual competence vs. perceived competence is leagues low for big newspapers like Vanity Fair or CNN.

He then goes on to list random left-wing & right-wing papers & websites, mentions 1 guy who became a Hairpiece-supporter ( &, ironically, considers himself pro-neoliberal, making him not on Jacobin or Naked Capitalism’s team, since they despise neoliberals worse than pond scum ), & 1 other politician who went on to gladhand Hairpiece in hopes o’ getting a spot in his crony bin. So this vile “alt-left” includes 3 people, 1 o’ which committed the crime o’ calling a celebrity a self-indulgent airhead.

O, sorry, we have 1 mo’:

Cornel West, once an orator at every social-justice convocation who got so uncoiled by his rancorous contempt for Obama and cast adrift into the hazy fringes of the alt-left—see Michael Eric Dyson’s definitive autopsy, “The Ghost of Cornel West,” the New Republic, April 19, 2015—that in 2016 he supported the Green Party candidacy of Jill Stein, that stellar mind.

O, ¿you mean that stellar mind who talked a lot ’bout the problems o’ the US’s electoral system, such as its inane electoral system or lack o’ instant-runoff, which caused Clinton to lose in the 1st place while that genius Clinton talked ’bout Hairpiece’s fucking tax returns? ( But she’s a 3rd party, & therefore dumb, ’cause independent thought is too hipster ). As opposed to that genius, Clinton, who lost what should’ve been a cinch ’cause she couldn’t be bothered to so-much-as visit Wisconsin. That genius.

I should add that Dyson’s “definitive autopsy” is nothing mo’ than a multithousand word pile with li’l actual analysis o’ Obama or West’s politics, but plenty o’ words ’bout West being a hypocrite ’cause he made fun o’ Dyson dicksucking Obama while West dicksucked Prince — when any sane person given the choice ’tween sucking Prince’s dick or Obama’s dick would choose Prince every time. ’Specially now that Prince is a ghost: if you’ve ne’er sucked a ghost’s dick, you’ve ne’er lived.

To be fair, this writer for once provides actual evidence o’ an actual target showing actual political naivity:

It was Jill Stein who said Hillary might be the greater evil in a Trump matchup (“Hil­la­ry has the potential to do a whole lot more damage, get us into more wars”), a sentiment shared by actress Susan Sarandon, who told an interviewer she believed that Clinton was “more dangerous” than Trump because she was more hawkish and better able to ram her agenda through Congress.

On 1 hand, it’s important to remember that during the election itself, Hairpiece did spew some talk ’bout backing ’way from wars, caged in the name o’ antiglobalism, since the only way to get idiot bigots to oppose bombing foreigners is to tell them that that’d mean forcing the soldiers to go near them. Then ’gain, anyone who takes Hairpiece on his word for anything is an idiot, & we’ve seen this when he sent drones to Syria.

In words I suspect Sarandon wishes she could reel back, she discounted the threat level posed by a Trump presidency: “Seriously, I am not worried about a wall being built . . . . He is not going to get rid of every Muslim in this country.”

“As long as we still have a few Muslims left, I won’t have to worry ’bout putting on brown face for the movie version o’ Arabian Nights. The rest o’ those Muslims, though, they’re collateral damage — fuck ’em”.

While Jill Stein is certainly a relevant example, Sarandon’s just some dimwitted celebrity — just like Meryl Streep. Shocking she’s dumb, too.

Let’s have a compromise, Vanity Fair: all actors shut up ’bout politics, whether liberal ditzes, “alt-left” ditzes, or conservative 1980s presidents.

He follows this with some Russian conspiracy theories, which, following the pattern o’ subconscious realization o’ his own idiocy, involves self-referencing cold-war scares without a sense o’ irony.

See, it used to be that left-wingers opposed warmongering, ’cause it doesn’t solve anything. If people like this guy who support warmongering so long as it has the stamp o’ approval by Clinton & the Democrats had any semblance o’ nuanced political savvy ( or didn’t have their fist up the Democrats’ asshole ), they’d remember that the Cold War ended not ’cause Reagan constantly threatened military force gainst Russia but ’cause Reagan was actually rather genial ( while still being outspoken in his opposition to the Soviet Union’s government system ) with Gorbachev, convincing him to moderate the Soviet government. Contrast that with the Soviet Union’s reaction to JFK’s blitheringly stupid actions during the Cuban Missle Crisis: alarmed by the US’s cowboy, “Fuck you all”, they booted Khrushchev, who was relatively moderate, & tightened control o’er the populace. Anyone with a basic understanding o’ human psychology knows that that’s what happens when you act belligerent toward someone else: they’re mo’ likely to act belligerent back. But then, assuming this writer has any knowledge o’ basic psychology is silly, since he doesn’t have any basic knowledge, period.

It ends with the best:

And here is where the alt-right and the alt-left press foreheads for a Vulcan mind-meld: the belief that the real enemy, the true Evil Empire, isn’t Putin’s Russia but the Deep State, the C.I.A./F.B.I./N.S.A. alphabet-soup national-security matrix. But if the Deep State can rid us of the blighted presidency of Donald Trump, all I can say is “Go, State, go.”

It’s ironic for someone who criticizes Hairpiece for being authoritarian to pledge support for a military coop with the lines “Go, State, go”.

I could throw round a bunch o’ labels @ this writer, like “neoliberal stooge” or “rich liberal who cares mo’ ’bout ideological tripe & having their shallow team win o’er the real suffering o’ poor people” ( oops: still couldn’t keep myself from being mo’ descriptive ); but there’s a much mo’ fitting label: this writer is a fucking idiot who doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking ’bout.

Worse, he’s a destructive idiot. His idiocy is destructive to the left-wing. He lumps all critics o’ the Democratic Party, e’en those, like Jacobin, which hasn’t shown a single shred o’ support for the alt-right with those “leftists” who authentically show no concern for women or racial minorities as a pathetic attempt to deflect from the fact that the Democratic Party are fuck-ups. He doesn’t want to admit that Clinton wasn’t sabotaged by an evil conspiracy o’ those vile leftists who don’t show 100% devotion, but that Clinton was authentically a shitty politician. He doesn’t want to admit that Clinton was widely unpopular ’mong leftists, not ’cause many o’ them are secret women-haters, but ’cause Clinton supported truly awful things, like deeply homophobic murderous tyrants in Haiti ( & these fucking Democratic sycophants have the gall to accuse other people o’ not caring ’bout “identity politics”, when Clinton showed a shocking lack o’ concern for the worst o’ attacks gainst a minority group ), supported drone strikes gainst middle easterners ( hard to take leftists seriously when they attack a president for kicking Muslims out o’ a country while praising a politicians who supports mass-murdering them ), & supported economic policies that hurt poor people ( though not as much as Hairpiece, you dumb “Hairpiece leftists” ).

A’least the alt-right is consistent ’nough to stick by something. They despise Muslims, & they live by it. When leftists attack bigotry on 1 hand while supporting bigotry on the other ’cause it’s “convenient” or “practical” ( the Democrats are so practical that they keep losing ), you can’t be surprised when much o’ the populace becomes cynical & stops taking you seriously.

But the alt-right did teach 1 lesson I’d been hammering ’bout for years: compromises can actually hurt just as much as they help, & so can having too low o’ standards. The alt-right succeeded while bashing many other right-wingers for sometimes letting their silly li’l conscience get in the way o’ screwing o’er weaker people. ¿Why can’t this work for the left? ¿Could not the left benefit by cutting off these hypocritical idiots who simply get in the way rather than dragging us all down with them?

After all, it’s not like anybody likes them. “Hollywood liberal” is such a popular taunt ’cause it strikes a nerve with those who otherwise might be open to either side: privileged ditzes who throw platitudes ’bout disadvantaged people, but don’t care ’bout them in any concrete way. ¿Wouldn’t the left look mo’ serious, look like they actually care, if they cut off these exploitive wastes?

¿You know what I love when looking up info on how to use SSH? Some artsy douche trying to defend their liberal-guilt love for o’erpriced brand computers made by monopolistic corporations by spewing pseudoscientific sociology. E’en better when they depict themselves as a Powerpuff Girl with Jimmy Neutron hair.

This writer starts by talking ’bout screaming @ open source software being a part o’ “the partriarchy”, which is the kind o’ o’erpretentious word for something as simple as “sexism” that builds the butter for ad hominem arguments by sexists to mock me for actually being able to read statistics. See, this is why I can’t stand dumb leftists: with rightwingers, I get to be the 1 laughing; but now this idiot’s making me look bad in association.

I mean, they actually end their bio with, “I keep myself sane through African dance and wandering around NYC documenting daily life”. That’s a parody, ¿right? That’s the kind o’ leftist that leftists make fun o’, ’cause they usually only read ’bout them in Mallard Fillmore. “I keep myself from wallowing in self pity by appropriating the culture o’ people far worse off than me & wandering expensive cities creepily spying on people who do actual work”.

That’s right, fucker: I have Social Justice Magic, too — & my spells are stronger. I got the rat’s tail.

Anyway, this person strangely singles out open source software for being part o’ the patriarchy sexist not ’cause o’ Eric S. Raymond’s involvement, but ’cause you have to spend a lot o’ time to figure it out — which is probably ’cause the people who made them aren’t privileged ’nough, not being paid & all, to add all those usability touches. So, basically, they’re unemployed losers. That’s true — but not the ultimate in privilege. I would also add that it’s ironic that this person complains ’bout other people having too much time on their hands when this working-class hero mentioned in their bio, as we read earlier, wasting copious ’mounts o’ time wandering expensive cities screwing round. While I agree that most open-source-software creators are probably quite rich & well-off, I’d say they’re probably less privileged than this rich, urbanite idiot who gets paid to complain ’bout how they’re too dumb & lazy to do actual work.

’Course, it might be that software in general is sexist — & ’specially bigoted gainst poor people. That should be obvious: as it turns out, it is harder for poor people to work with expensive electronics that they can’t get access to ’cause they’re, well, poor, e’en if the software the exists on that hardware they can’t get is free — provided they can get internet access to download it. This writer e’en could’ve pointed out that, technically, Linux is no cheaper than Windows ’cause hardware that comes packed with Windows is cheaper than any hardware you can get without an operating system or with Linux preinstalled, thanks to the economic magic o’ monopolies. Linux fans, not being bitter ol’ bearded men @ all, lovingly call this the “Microsoft Tax”. I approve o’ this term not ’cause I care that much ’bout OS politics, but for plain politics: it’s a rarely-acknowledged existence o’ a tax that exists without government intervention @ all — well, ’cept for that huge government intervention known as “private property”.

But we’re digressing. Anyway, if this writer were to acknowledge this, they would have to acknowledge Windows as the winner, not shiny ol’ Apple — &, indeed, Windows is still the most popular OS &, as someone who actually doesn’t live in fancy cities & who actually has met working class people once in his life, I happen to know that that is the go-to OS for working class people. So far the only people I’ve met who use Macs are upper-class people — though oft the kind, like this writer, who likes to pretend they’re lower-class without having to bear the actual negative consequences o’ that class.

If this writer had any self-awareness, they’d realize that they are immensely privileged themselves simply for the fact that they get to work with computers @ all & not, say, have to worry ’bout getting their arm cut off from the sewing machine they have to use 16 hours a day. I might e’en, as admittedly presumptuous as it may be o’ me, try to argue that I, as a 1st-worlder in a comfy home, having recently had the fun o’ dicking round with great open-source program designs as SSH & command lines in general a few months after leaving a job where I worked 16 hours a day in drudge work, can say that fiddling with computers is still a blast in comparison. I might, as rash as it may be, go far ’nough to inquire this person as to how positive they’d find the proposition that they trade in their burdenous job o’ asking other people to tell them how to do things for the exciting job o’ cleaning & filling dirty trays & running back & forth carrying equipment on high shelves for 13 – 16 hours. I can imagine their response would be a hearty, “¡Yes! ¡Please!”

&, the reason why I feel bad ’bout bringing up this subject myself, is that that’s not e’en that bad in comparison to most people. Actually, most o’ my coworkers @ said place had it much worse &, bizarrely, didn’t whine nearly as much.

See, if this were a complaint ’bout software in general, I would agree wholeheartedly — though I’d note that “software sucks” or “Linus Torvald sucks ’cause he doesn’t program a way to delete the massive inequality o’ upbringing to leads to massive inequality o’ skill potential” aren’t useful conclusions. Somehow I doubt the kind o’ person who enjoys wandering fancy cities would prefer we go back to living in the countryside & churning our own milk; I know e’en as much as I utterly despise shit like Heroku or Docker or whatever the fuck bullshit, I’d much rather do that than fingering some cow’s tits — as sexy as that is.

If I wanted to put on my Marxist hat — & I do like Marxist hats, ’cause they’re swanky & let me use my own fancy meaningless terms like “dialectics”, proletariat”, & “horse-piss” — I could say that this represents the “bourgeois” decay — all decay these days be bourgeois — wherein we naturally turn to individual solutions to economic problems, like badgering random programmers to not make random people have to ask them how to do things, ’stead o’ government solutions ’cause Cap’n Capitalism & his Scurvy Crew hardwired our minds to not think o’ such things like how our grassy English makes us forget most o’ our words for snow.

My problem is that this person is trying to then argue that Macs are somehow better for lower-class people, ’cause they’re s’posedly easier to use, e’en though all o’ the working class people I know find Windows just as easy, & much cheaper. But then Windows is dirty & gross. Then ’gain, so are real working class people, as opposed to the ones that exist in this writer’s imagination.

Actually, to be fair, I have to remember this writer used the word “patriarchy”, not poor, which seems strange. ’Gain, if the complaint were what a sausagefest software in general was, I would agree — & that is, indeed, what the actual points this writer makes are. But then it devolves into a driveling piece o’ self-pity that’s basically, “I don’t know this stuff, but I do know Mac stuff, so the former’s obviously privileged & the latter isn’t, ’cause obviously I’m not privileged”, e’en though there are plenty o’ actually unprivileged people who would find Macs just as incomprehensible. I might e’en admit that if I, programming prodigy that I am who can’t figure out basic SSH, were to have to use a Mac, I’d probably get frustrated & bitch ’bout what idiots the developers were. I wouldn’t post a pretentious article online ’bout what a capitalist conspiracy Macs are to subjugate the proletariat or how unfair it is that I have to learn them — ¡You can’t make me, mommy! I would write an article making fun o’ idiots who waste my time trying to research info by putting their inane claptrap online, which is why I’m here now; but I wouldn’t pretend I’m noble for doing so, any mo’ than I should find myself noble for making fun o’ someone for thinking themselves noble for doing so, rather than helping lower-class people in useless, idiotic ways, like giving to charity or doing actual social work. Phhh. ¿What use is that compared to a bunch o’ middle class college brats pontificating ’bout the sociology o’ command line?

See, I’d be less annoyed if this wasn’t obviously a narcissist trying to appropriate serious social issues for their own ego trip. What’s e’en mo’ annoying is that this person then goes on to try deflecting the inevitable criticism o’ what they themselves clearly see is a stupid argument with what is essentially self-pity:

And now, I’m going to put this down and go do something else. Lately I’ve been wondering how I got here. I never intended to become an amanuensis for technologists. There were other things I meant to write about, and do.

You know someone’s truly @ the bottom o’ the hierarchy when their main stress is, ¡they just don’t feel like they’re doing what they’re meant to do, man!

You know — I shouldn’t pick on these frivilous details too much in this serious treatise o’ mine ( so serious I had to e’en look up how to spell “treatise” ), but I’m half anal, half asshole — but I love when blog writers feel the need to tell readers what they’re going to do after finishing the post. “& that’s it. Now I’m going to go smoke pot & listen to Pink Floyd albums.” That’s a perfectly good hobby to have; but if you’re going to bother me ’bout it, you better be a good comrade & share both the Pink & the Floyd, if you catch my carrions.

Also, I can think o’ 1 good reason to not want to be an “amanuensis for technologists”: that’s a stupid term for “scribble slave for programmer douche bags”. You know which 1 makes a better slugline on the ol’ resume.

Maybe I shouldn’t focus entirely on this mere individual, who, after all, is the veritable emperor o’ feminism & technology & not just some random nobody who wrote a blog post that happened to unfortunately hit my headlights in that wonderful repository o’ scholarship known as Google. To be fair, I’m sure I thought these kinds o’ things when I was, like, 16. But that doesn’t mean this pattern isn’t itself something silly that should be mocked in the hopes that people don’t get the idea that it’s somehow logical to construct convoluted theories for why preferring PlayStation 4 o’er the Switch is the prime method for smashing capitalism — ’cause I know plenty o’ smart people look to random blogs full o’ insane poetry & pretentious analyses o’ their own shitty rom hacks for life lessons.

If you read this writer’s article where they pontificate on the social importance o’ Mac’s shininess — I’m not fucking kidding — you’ll see some o’ the mo’ pathetic pseudointellectual bullshit that seems to contradict itself. “Attacking Mac’s shininess is truly an attack gainst women, ’cause society forces them into the role o’ shininess… which is wrong, ’cause it’s sexist… but we have to accept this social fact, ’cause it just is…” You know, I remember a time when people who called themselves “leftists” actually attacked social norms — attacked the idea that women had to be “girly”; now it’s sexist to attack the social norms themselves, ’cause “leftists” themselves have apparently internalized them. Note that the expense o’ Macs isn’t brought up @ all — presumably ’cause that’s a weaker class that this writer isn’t a part o’, & therefore unimportant.

The silliest thing is a simple question: ¿Who’s putting a gun to your head & demanding you to use Linux shit? I mean, that might make me look hypocritical for making fun o’ Lispers; but I ne’er accused them o’ white supremacy ’cause they nagged me to use their shit. Granted, there was that Lisper who made up some story ’bout beating the shit out o’ some Jew stereotype out o’ a Nazi cartoon for the unrepentable behavior o’ not apologizing for trying to open his car, & then leaving without causing any damage @ all… ( Laughs ). God damn — ¿why are all you programmers such shitty people? ¿Do these fucking things leak chemicals?

But as Crazy Racist Jones says, “It is all a matter of choosing your words correctly!”

( Laughs. ) Sorry: fuck this stupid subject; we have to talk mo’ ’bout this Google Group. This comes right after those delightful examples o’ storytelling:

> > > I really foresee the collapse of civilization.
> > Yep, me too.
>
> I’m trying to prevent that, by building a new kind of economic
> system based on labor rather than national $currency$ as the unit
> of exchange, but I’ve been unable to find anyone to help me with my
> project.

You may want to try resurrecting a man named Karl Marx — I hear he influenced some wonderful economic systems beloved by all.

Everybody who foresees the collapse of civilization, also notices that
the problem is our economic system. I discuss this in “Ramon.” I would
be happy to discuss your plan, which I looked over. If you give me
your email address, I will respond that way. I don’t think this is a
appropriate topic for comp.lang.lisp though. Lets resolve the lack-of-
laptop problem first.

“( Boyish laugh. ) We can trade conspiracy theories ’bout the Obamapocalypse after we help Scottie fix his laptop. ( Waves hand forward ). ¡C’mon, buddy!”

My favorite part is that, a few messages down, someone else says:

Either I have lived a very sheltered
life so far, or c.l.l has a disproportionate share of people I would
describe as odd. People who brag about how they beat up others
certainly qualify.”

Well, maybe if you weren’t so sheltered you’d know that beating up strangers who don’t apologize for touching your car is the epitome o’ social intelligence.

You know, this is the 1 time when I might berate this writer — the narcissistic blackface ( seriously, I can’t get o’er that “African dance” bullshit ) Mac nut, not Crazy Racist Jones — for not employing ad hominem. ¿How the hell are you complaining ’bout Linux “patriarchy” & not mentioning this shit? It’d certainly be mo’ entertaining than that bullshit ’bout concert posters or some tacky picture o’ that dumbass Linux penguin in a Harry Potter outfit. Harry Potter is the best example o’ patriarchy ’cause… ¿it’s written by a woman?

It annoys me, ’cause it makes me look dumb, thanks to simplistic association. I used to defend leftists as being smarter than right-wingers & used to make fun o’ idiots like Sir Keynes the 3rd for his strawmen gainst the true enemies — women who want equal pay. He’s still wrong: these leftists aren’t dumb ’cause they believe the obvious fact that there’s plenty o’ sexism & racism & that it isn’t mostly based on some huge inherent biological difference; it’s just that their arguments are stupid. This person’s right that technology’s sexist; they’re wrong that it’s ’cause people aren’t all buying expensive Macs ’cause o’ some wall o’ text ’bout concert posters & Photoshop bling, which this author apparently had time to write ’bout, but didn’t have time to learn how to install Ubuntu. ( I call bullshit on that last part, by the way: anyone who has actually used Ubuntu knows that it’s just a few GUI prompts, with such arcane questions as “¿What’s your time zone?” It’s literally no different from setting up Windows or Mac. Either this writer is a complete moron or an utter liar; & considering the long pontifications they spewed, I’m going to assume the latter. )

This kind o’ idiocy is mo’ dangerous, ’cause it feeds idiotic ad hominem reasoning — in both ways. Criticizing dumbass sexism gets labeled as sexist ( only by complete idiots, thankfully ) — ’cause if the conclusion’s right, then every argument that supports it must be right. So if someone claims that Hitler was bad ’cause he stuck his dick in Hostess™ Cakes all day ’stead o’ being a true leader, I can’t say, “No, that’s stupid”, without being a Nazi. Meanwhile, some idiot points to this tripe to argue that it magically makes independent gender statistics invalid.

This is the curse o’ the western world now — Hairpiece politics. It’s just a race to the bottom o’ stupidity. Leftists don’t help their cause by defending leftist idiocy by just going, “Yes, but their heart’s in the right place” ( which, considering the cynicism o’ these posts, isn’t e’en correct ). I would actually argue that anyone who considers themselves trying to be intelligent — & I must admit, I can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t want to — should attack not only idiotic conclusions, but also idiotic arguments for correct conclusions.

¡& now I’m pissed ’cause I now have to go out & buy a Mac after going out & trading my Windows computer for a Linux @ the advice o’ that Ruby nut! ¡Damn it! ¡This is genocide, I’m telling you! #WhitePeopleWhoPretendToCareBoutSeriousSocialIssuesAsAScuseToFlakeLearningNewThingsArePeopleToo.

Late as always, since this shit always gets lost in the couch cushions…

Noah Smith’s actually good critique o’ Silicon Valley: “Useless Gawker-inspired rags with stupid names like Gizmodo & Whatthefuck are hypocrites for criticizing Silicon Valley despite themselves being mostly upper-class white people who do nothing to help others & are a parasitic cancer on the web, when the real problem with Silicon Valley isn’t that they’re evilly well-run businesses but actually incompetent, shittily-run businesses. Also, Peter Thiel is a shitty person”.

Sounds right to me.

OK, so I may have twisted his words a li’l bit on Gizmodo & Whatthefuck ( ¿Deadspin? That’s not a name you give a magazine — that’s a name you give a forgettable Marvel superhero ); but be honest: we were all thinking that.

Also, I love his reaction to the possibility o’ a tech bust: “It’s OK: it’s mostly computer dorks who’ll suffer, not normal people”. Ha, ha: fuck you, nerds; no mo’ $400 PlayStation 4s & $1,000 8-core 16GB-Ram monster towers for you. It’s just abandonware DOS games & SNES roms from now on, just like the rest o’ us plebs — the true sign o’ utter destitution.

What I don’t love is his goofy use o’ a screenshot from some generic tactical war game as some clunky metaphor for some theory vs. evidence bullshit. ¿Are blog readers so stupid that they can’t just read text if there’s not some irrelevant picture somewhere to ease them in? See, Sir Smith still hasn’t learned from the time he flunked economics in collegio — a true story, & a true English word — ’cause he thought it’d be great to put a screenshot o’ Golden Mario running through a bunch o’ coins in New Super Mario Bros 2: The Blandness Returns ’bove the abstract o’ his economic thesis on currency manipulation & fiber equilibriums.

Later on, Sir Smith demonstrated his expert knowledge o’ psychology by spewing some pseudoscientific bullshit ’bout what he called the “shouting class”, but what ordinary call “obnoxious assholes”, & which has existed since the cavepeople days when cavepeople would smash someone with a boulder if they saw a John McCain sticker on someone else’s wheel. This was inspired by him whining ’bout someone making fun o’ some Twitter thread thing he made wherein he talked ’bout how Democrats & Republicans should all stick dicks in each other’s bums & lick each other’s tears & some leftists rightfully called that “Family Circus shit”. This is 100% true if we translate “some leftists” as “J. J. W. Mezun”.

Join me next time as I twist the words o’ ’nother blog post.

Nothing says smarmy pseudointellectualist like naming your website Château Heartiste. If you look @ the “about” page, you’ll see it’s ’bout… ¿some artsy vector cartoon o’ 2 incredibly bored-looking people leaning into each other o’er a couch, ’bout to kiss? After that there’s just a contact form. “About” != “contact”.

Worst: I had to manually type out the carat A in the website name ’cause I couldn’t find the footer bar. I’ve now found it on the navigation bar. You clearly just used some WordPress theme & you still fucked up by picking 1 o’ the most asinine you could.

Anyway, the post we’re looking @ is, “Single White Women Want To Spread Their Legs For The World”, which is presumably ’bout my favorite porno wherein Lucy jams globes into her vagina.

Psyche. This is a super serious intellectual piece ’bout… fuck if I know. Pretending to be intelligent, obviously.

What other conclusion are we to draw when the voting behavior and opinions of single White women corroborates exactly what this post’s title asserts?

Please tell me this guy isn’t trying to claim that white women voted for Hairpiece ’cause they want a piece o’ his… hair… Ugh. I’ll just boil myself in acid for a few hours now.

From Bigly E, another id-buster post that reveals a leetle too much about the vagoconductive currents that emanate from single White women’s hindbrains.

Considering half o’ these words you made up, I doubt it reveals anything.

He next shows an immensely relevant graph o’ demographics for opinions on Trump’s brilliant plan for keeping out immigrants, borrowed from that apex o’ technological advancement known as ancient China. These demographics are, indeed, embarrassing, as they show that a li’l ’bove the majority realize how dumb a plan it is & that the majority o’ 3 mutually exclusive groups, “whites”, “all men”, & “married men” are dumb ’nough to think it will work. This only proves that white men are truly the least racist, ’cause only someone so ignorant o’ racism that they ne’er heard the popular slur gainst immigrants — “wetback” — could think that a purely land-based wall would be an unstoppable block to immigrants.

Single white women are more opposed to a big, beautiful wall than Asians, blacks, or even Hispanics are.

& here we see white men smashing that ol’ stereotype that only women are ditzes who love frivolous things simply for beauty, regardless o’ substance.

*twatpalm*

Either these statistics or the sexiness o’ Hairpiece’s wall made Heartiste stick his hand straight into his vagina & slobber with pleasure. Great.

Single White women are, presumably…

No, I’m going to stop you there before you make up some totally valid, unquestionable sociological analyses from the venerable source o’ science known as your rectum.

Hey, you know, this is clearly going to judge white women for not liking pretty walls that don’t do anything; but the polls show that blacks & latinos hate it almost just as much. ¿Why isn’t this post called “Blacks, Latinos, & White Women Want to Spread Their Legs for the World”? I expected mo’ cultural sensitivity from a man like you.

…for those of them…

Fuck, no, I didn’t say you should continue. ¡Stop!

…who still have a bit of bloom on the rose…

Stop plagiarizing shitty Irish poetry & get serious now.

…actively trawling the sexual market for cad and cavalier…

That is, indeed, odd. I would expect sex.

Thus, they are in their stage of life when all faculties, mental, emotional, libidinal, are focused to a pinpoint of estrogenic vitality, with the familiar shit-testing behavioral profile that vitality presupposes.

See, when I mix fancy words & words like “shit”, I’m trying to be funny, ’cause I’m obviously aware that nobody can take “estrogenic vitality” & “shit-testing” in the same sentence seriously.

This means, single White women are limbically primed to be aroused by dominance and a ZFG attitude in men…

See, this is what people rightfully make fun o’ bearded white men for doing: arm-chair psychoanalysis that’s half based on made-up concepts. It’s just there so the author can smugly tip their dumbass hipster hat & say, “You just don’t get it, man”. But I do get it: it’s cliche science fiction. I read this exact thing in Dark Moon Mirage, that “#1 thriller” that I bought from my local drugstore — you can’t fool me, “Heartiste”.

…and those men who fall short in these traits are dumped into the beta orbiter/friendzone with a quickness, when they aren’t rejected outright

You know white men — sorry, I mean White men, ’cause we’re back in the 19th century, — have it bad when their biggest fear is, DUM DUM DUM, The Friendzone. I don’t know what he’s complaining ’bout: the friendzone sounds like a wicked fun place to be. I bet they have pizza & arcades 24 / 7. Certainly sounds better than some stupid fucking wall in the desert.

The dumping can be literal, or metaphorical, as in a political friendzoning that weakens the electoral power of White men.

“I talk ’bout this in my science fiction novel wherein the Friendzos invade earth & subjugate the US under their tentacle powers”.

As a social phenomenon, a large chunk of America’s White men have spectacularly failed the dominance/ZFG test.

Well, in my defense, I ne’er e’en took the test. ’Cause it doesn’t fucking exist.

America the Shitlib Feminist Shrike…

Stop, stop. Go back to a thesaurus & learn words that aren’t inherently silly & then maybe I’ll take your pseudoscience seriously.

…has effectively neutered White men…

Awesome. Now I get to fuck as much as I want without worrying ’bout popping out some brats.

and unmasked them for romantically unappealing doormats to single White women.

The greatest crime o’ White women is finding out the secret that white dorks who spend hours o’ their time typing reams o’ pseudointellectual slop online might in fact be unappealing. I’ll ne’er know how they cracked that secret.

As women are wont by the essence of their sex to spread their legs for the dominant tribe’s men…

Sorry, ¿did I say we were stuck in the 19th century? I meant 19th century BC.

Also, wouldn’t the “dominant tribe’s men” be the people in charge — i.e. Hairpiece & his circus. Looks pretty white to me.

…they will wish…

But they don’t do so yet, since that would require this author to not write in the most hilariously pretentious way possible. Here’s a word you probably don’t know, but should probably learn: “hypercorrection”.

…to see tribal battles play out…

See, the slight problem with this guy’s “research” is that it’s based entirely on his ’bouts o’ furious fapping to his favorite episodes o’ Xena: Warrior Princess.

…so that they may enjoy the luxury of choosing winners and their winning seed.

¿Can I add a South-Park-like warning that blinks the words, “This isn’t made up. These people actually believe this”. Now I see why Hairpiece is so nonchalant ’bout climate change; if I had to hang out with these idiots all the time, I’d wish for the whole world to drown, too.

The single White woman desire for open borders is nothing less than a desire for alpha male interlopers to test the mettle of their betatized male loafers.

I take back what I said gainst those Lisp-using racists ( all 1 o’ them ): a’least they were entertaining. This idiot just makes me want to fall asleep.

A massive civilizational shit test, if you will.

No thanks — but I can clearly see you’re passing with gold stars.

For this reason, it was always a mistake to entrust the nation’s future to its native daughters…

Damn. Well I guess voting for Pocahontas for the last election was stupid after all.

…especially while in their pulchritudinous primes.

Stop plagiarizing Lovecraft.

Women are more xenophilic than men…

I think all those ads I see on Pirate Bay & Zoom V — whatever his stupid name was — tell a different story.

…and this difference goes deep, all the way to the Darwinian pulses…

Made up by someone who’s ne’er read Darwin.

Heartiste goes on to throw out his listicle o’ solutions to the serious political problem o’ his bitterness o’er some women he liked preferring a black guy o’er him ’cause the black guy doesn’t actively make her brain melt with subliterary tripe like “pulchritudinous primes”. None o’ these will actually be put into place, ’course, ’cause Hairpiece is too cynical to care & too incompetent to get anything done, anyway, & ’cause the brunt o’ Heartiste’s political strategy is wishful thinking & sending his bored fans to roam Twitter calling random women fat. In that spirit, most o’ these goals are totalitarian & could only be enjoyed by the kind o’ people with absolutely no individualist self-respect. So, they’re basically what laissez-faire libertarians strawman socialists as being — ’cept on the right wing. Maybe if you guys actually cared ’bout individualism you’d spend mo’ time attacking these guys & less people who raise tax — O, ¿who am I kidding? These guys liked Pinochet. They don’t give a shit ’bout anything but money.

I welcome further suggestions from the commentariat.

Suggestion #1: don’t use stupid words like “commentariat”.

An “overfeed the beast” strategy that I sometimes see entertained by crueler elements in the Exasperated-Right won’t work…

I think he’s confusing politics with the lingering plotline o’ Johnny the Homocidal Maniac. “Listen to that Pillsbury Doughboy, Johnny: trying to keep the wall painted with the blood o’ your victims is futile…”

…if you dump millions of Dirt World trashkin into single White women playgrounds…

Woah, woah, woah. I was joking before, but I seriously want you to stay ’way from li’l white girl playgrounds — I don’t care how many bootleg Pokémon you have in your long, black jacket.

…all that will accomplish is an increase in the murder, rape… and miscegenation rates.

Well, yeah: I guess it makes sense that after you rape & murder all the li’l white girls you’ll have to go after the dirty ethnics. Now I see why it’s so vital for white women to keep their fertility so high: ¡they have a huge murder spree this maniac has planned for them to outpace!

The bleeding heart politics of these dumb bunnies won’t move an iota.

( Laughs. ) You have all these obtuse, pretentious labels that are basically just “poopy head”, & then you have “dumb bunnies”. “Shit: my thesaurus ran out. Ah, fuck it: nobody not lobotomized’ll read past this part, anyway”.

No, the way forward is for White men to retake control of their homeland and scoff at the precious political boilerplate their women solipsistically indulge.

“The plan is for uppercase white men to take absolute control from the majority through the magic o’ saying bad things gainst them”. Shit, if that worked, I should be Dictator for Life already. I love how these idiots who clearly weren’t paying attention to politics for decades happen to barely luck into having their favored politician win once & they think that means they have the right to be kings. That’s why the Supreme Court was able to block parts o’ your master Hairpiece’s dumbass travel ban, despite his magic powers. You know someone has the most childish conception o’ politics — & should probably save their words for something they actually know something ’bout — when they think the president o’ the US is the supreme ruler o’ the country. “Duh, ¿what’s the branches o’ government? I ne’er went to middle school…”

Then ‘gain, when a guy who thinks, “People who disagree with me are dumb bunnies”, tells me I have to support it, I have to.

I can tell you…

Yes, you’ve shown your ability to tell a lot, & I’m sad for it every time.

…that if we refuse to tackle our shared single White women problem…

“¡We must bomb those filthy Mormons in Utah!”

…the nonWhite…

¡Nope! ¡I’m done! I tolerated a lot; but I fucking rage quit @ camel-case races. The fact that any alt-right douche has the fucking gall to accuse me o’ being an “SJW” when this pretentious shit goes on in their fucking lawn is laughable.

But Now the Greatest Hits

The page below “About” is “Alpha Assessment Submission”. Presumable “alpha” refers to a male’s intellectual development, with “alpha” being the Big Riggs Over the Road kind o’ mind, while filthy Betas are those who have figured out how to make the other truck move.

Submit in the comments below conversations in the form of texts/phone calls/voicemails/face to face interactions that you have had, or plan to have, with women you are attempting to bed.

“Send me your private info so I can jerk off to it”.

I love how he can spell look up how to spell pulchritudinous, but he can’t get “face-to-face” right.

I can bet that these comments are 100% true & not fantasy trips by insecure egotists.

For instance, let’s look @ some o’ the lines o’ the top comment, from a guy whose icon represents what he probably is in real life: a Commodore-64-era dick.

I’m too badass to be a mere bf.

“…I said as I drew my Dragon Ball Z pictures in 6th grade”.

That’s a label, and I don’t think we’re the type of people who are given to labeling ourselves.

What I love most ’bout the alt-right is that they mix the worst o’ both the left & the right: pretentious douchebaggery & bigotry; the intellectual rot o’ cowboy conservatives & the frivilousness o’ rich liberals. It’s like science finally engineered the least likeable people in the universe.

Her: Hmm, I’m not sure I understand, but if what you’re trying to say is that you don’t want to be tied down, that’s ok because you can do what you want and so can I. = )

Me ( 6 hours later ) : Hey, guess what I overheard the hairdresser telling her girlfriend about me?

Her ( immediately ) : What? ( etc. etc. )

That’s literally how it ends. What a badass ending — right up there with Gohan finally defeating Cell.

If you enjoy the feeling o’ having your dick ripped off & having it slapped gainst your face… No, I still wouldn’t recommend reading mo’. & if you’re a woman, well, imagine how much worse it must feel to have an imaginary dick ripped off & slapped gainst your face. It’s not e’en your own dick. ¿Whose dick is it? I don’t want some other fucker’s dick gainst my face — I don’t know where it’s been.

Next I have “Beta of the Year Award”, after this shitty WordPress theme takes a million years to load. I expected it to be an “Hour o’ Hate” for prominent feminists or whatever online, but ’stead found it to be a place for people to bitch ’bout rappers they don’t like anymo’. Next.

Then you get “Dating Market Value Tests” — a pretentious way to say, “How Good You Are @ Being a Prostitute” — for both men & women, which is proof that Heartiste has the apex o’ gender-equality beliefs. Unsurprisingly, these are just the writer throwing out his particular tastes in men & women as if they were scientific fact, ‘cept without that vital element o’ science known as “evidence”. In truth, you should get -1,000,000 points if you’re pathetic ‘nough to take dating advice as law from some random nobody on the internet, ‘specially when that writer is so professional that their top posts have such titles as “Penis Size Around the World”, “The Sixteen Commandments of Poon” & “Li’l Asian, Tight Pussy” ( my other favorite porno ). It’s like the guy’s screaming to the world ’bout how much he wishes he was the next George Carlin with all these edgy titles, yo, ‘cept without anything resembling the cleverness, originality, or charm that made Carlin actually interesting. Also, it’s 2017 & nobody ‘bove the age o’ 15 reacts with anything but embarassment @ these clunky titles.

Also, ¿what’s up with the occupation scores? ¿“Struggling web designer”? Well, yeah, I can imagine being a struggling anything would be unimpressive; ¿why is “web designer emphasized? ¿& where’s the score for someone who’s a well-off web designer? ¿How will Andy Clarke know his potential for getting some prodigious fucks? ¿Is this our grand Heartiste revealing a bit mo’ ’bout himself than he meant to? ( As if the clunky WordPress theme weren’t ‘nough. )

Worst, Heartiste gives up the chance to make silly obviously-wrong answers. For his “In the middle of the conversation you have to pee” question, which apparently enraged Commodore-64-Penis Man in teaching young men not to tell women everything ’bout their juicy bladder needs — which is, indeed, sexy & the best way to connect pipes — he could’ve added an answer, “Raise your hand & go, ‘Ooo ooo. ¿Can I pretty please use the bathroom’? I have to go reaaaally bad”. I’m disgusted by your lack o’ fun ‘bove all else.

Also, I heavily disagree with some o’ his points. For instance, “I’m thirsty. Are you thirsty? Let’s go inside and taste DC’s finest tap water. But you can only stay for a minute, I have to get up early” definitely shouldn’t get points, ’cause that’s a shitty pick-up line — ‘specially if you’re 1 o’ the vast majority o’ people who aren’t in Washington D.C.

I also love how in his woman test, 15 – 16 year ol’s get a higher score than people in their upper 20s. Turns out my joke ’bout him being a pedophile isn’t all that wrong. That’s unfortunate.

The women test is also hilariously wrong & obviously tends purely toward the fantasies o’ an insecure man rather than resembling anything close to real human behavior. Apparently women who have won several sports trophies have the worst time getting dates.

It’s obviously mo’ a sad case o’ someone trying to encourage other people to act the way he wants them to do than anything resembling true advice.

Next we have “Diversity + Proximity = War” which only reminds me o’ my favorite anonymous sprite comic critic. “¿What the hell? Diversity + Proximity = Shitty”. This time the author actually does have studies — a bunch o’ links to studies with summaries & no analysis deeper than that. I’d be surprised if the author e’en read them all & didn’t just get them as hand-me-downs from some other white-supremacy site. Meanwhile, that fucking dork Noah Smith actually bothered to do mo’ commentary on much o’ the studies, & shockingly ‘nough, the results are mo’ questionable. Still, Heartiste deserves points for going a li’l ‘bove the usual standards.

“Shit Cuckservatives Say”, meanwhile, is a quick return to rock-bottom standards, with a regurgitation o’ a meme that was ne’er funny to begin with. Alt-righters in their deep narcissism & lack o’ political knowledge seem blithely ignorant o’ the fact that they’re the weird ones in the right wing, not those lame ol’ conservatives who are too busy for that childish Pepe shit, “God damn it, when I was your age I was walking 8 miles in the snow everyday to some coal mines to work for 16 hours a day, & now you hipsters are meming up my Republican Party, ¿what’s going on in this world anymo’?”

This post is just a bunch o’ quotes that I’m s’posed to think are stupid, e’en though Heartiste doesn’t bother to ‘splain why, ’cause he’s so narcissistic that he can’t imagine needing to actually convince anyone anything. That’s great ’cause it means he won’t e’er have any influence on anyone: either they’ll already nod their heads or they’ll leave in bewilderment or annoyance. Either way, nobody’s mind’s changed, & thus there’s no point, since there’s certainly nothing inherently funny ’bout “Unions destroyed Detroit”. ¿Is Heartiste 1 o’ those “Realist Left” who think capitalism is a conspiracy by the illuminati to make black & white people put dicks in each other’s bums & lick each other’s tears? ‘Cause if that were true, I’d definitely support capitalism, ’cause that sounds immensely sexy. ¿Or is he 1 o’ those people who thinks talk o’ economics @ all is a Marxist conspiracy & that obviously Detroit was ruined by those whorish bitches who won’t sleep with me :(. Heartiste, you need to ‘splain your views in mo’ detail so I know what kind o’ crazy racist you are — there’s all kinds o’ flavors.

I made the mistake o’ looking @ the last page, that famous treatise, “The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon”, that’ll surely put Heartiste right up into the echelons o’ Aristotle, Sun Tzu, Hume, J. S. Mills, & Baldwin, & regretted it. Most o’ it’s a guide on how to act like a child in reaction to children — clearly the only women Heartiste has e’er encountered, judging by how he thinks relationships work. Tip to Heartiste that he’ll definitely take to heart: you attract people like yourself. I’d stop to take a look round the kind o’ people you find yourself surrounded by & then take a longer look in the mirror ‘fore it’s too late & you end up like Hairpiece, wishing for the floods to come.

The last thing I don’t get is the sidebar labeled “Chaos”, which links such prominent alt-right websites as “Stuff White People Like”. I’m not sure if this guy doesn’t get irony or… doesn’t get irony & failed to do so here. “Chaos” seems to be 1 o’ those words infantile men throw round so they can feel like Nero from the Matrix — the “manly” version o’ “epic”. Like with “epic”, it just makes you look laughable. I’m guessing these 5 sites that are the true representation o’ leftism is meant to be a slag gainst leftists, since they are, indeed, inane.

Sorry this is late: WordPress for some reason decided to keep this as a draft ‘stead o’ being scheduled & has such a crappy interface that I didn’t find out till I happened to stumble onto it now.

---

Honest-to-god Huffington Post article:

To The Racist Guy Who Picked Up My Pencil During Class

Read this article & tell me it doesn’t sound like some wacky parody from The Onion.

I can only imagine the response article: “To The Rich Company That Exploits The Work O’ Desperate Journalists Without Paying Them Who Criticized Racism”¹.

Also, if we’re actually trying to make an intellectual argument to actually change the mind o’ a racist ( a futile endeavor ), I don’t think just asserting to them that racism’s bad is going to do anything. If anything, the racist, if they actually read this post ( ’cause I’m sure a racist Hairpiece-supporter would read Huffington Post ) would probably just convince themselves that you’re being all hostile — ¡& when they did you the great privilege o’ picking up your hefty pencil! — & convince themselves that this further backs up their view that the nonwhite-socialist-Starbucks-drinker Borg or whatever are crazy extreme pushy people or whatever & continue posting trite racist jokes ’cause they have no creativity.

Thanks for that, by the way. I mean, yeah, I’m sure your family getting deported is a problem & all; but I think we need to look @ the dire problems here, such as me having to see dumb racist jokes online & roll my eyes.

Huffington Post, I truly wish you’d learn that when you write articles arguing gainst legitimately bad things, you should try to not be stupid while doing so, so you don’t unintentionally hurt the cause you’re fighting for. Maybe if you actually paid your writers, you could get some who actually give a shit ’nough to try.

Spoiled brats whine ’bout how the evil idiotic public through evil democracy doesn’t give them what they, the supposedly superior elites, want, & while doing so prove exactly why the idiotic public shouldn’t listen to the e’en stupider elites.

Washington Post in particular had a stupid article on the issue, where they basically make fun o’ democracy by pointing out some random effects that could’ve had an effect on the results, but to which we have no evidence they do, & them simply stating that they don’t know why certain people supported a certain way. Maybe you could be actual journalists & ask somebody, dumbasses.

Indeed, e’en as someone rather skeptical o’ e’en referendums as instruments o’ democracy (see later), this article talking ’bout how people went to extreme depths to get to a polling station belies that idea that this was simply absentminded voting. Usually we criticize the vulgar masses for neglecting to vote. The only connection this article made to the “leave” side was that it characterized them as caring mo’–‘gain, without any evidence to back this up. E’en if that were the case, the fact that the other side didn’t e’en care that much could say something ’bout that side.

Meanwhile, “Ethicist” (read: person highly paid off heavily-tax-funded college for spewing mindless drivel) Jason Brennan was so riled up that he decided to write a whole book Against Democracy & decided to exploit Brexit as a way to whore his book to the mass media.

He claims that “[t]o have even a rudimentary sense of the pros and cons of Brexit, a person would need to possess tremendous social scientific knowledge. One would need to know about the economics and sociology of trade and immigration, the politics of centralized regulation, and the history of nationalist movements,” but that “there is no reason to think even a tenth of the UK’s population has a basic grasp of the social science needed to evaluate Brexit.”

Curiously, Brennan doesn’t bother to offer a slice o’ info, other than some anecdotal story ’bout dumb Britons Googling questions ’bout what the EU is–without any evidence that those same questions were posed by people who voted “no,” or were e’en people who voted @ all, or were e’en the majority. Possibly his lack o’ economic enlightenment on Brennan’s part is ’cause anyone who actually has read much economics knows how simpleminded it is ‘hind its pretty graphs & how much o’ an utter failure it has been @ predicting anything.

Indeed, London’s stocks have been growing, as e’en Krugman had to admit (while arguing that this will still have some disastrous consequences for some vague future). He then defends economists alarmist ’bout short-term consequences as essentially lying for the public’s good, since the public is apparently too dumb for subtle messages (so much for the enlightened elites guarding the public gainst their bad tendencies) for being well-intentioned, e’en if wrong.

Then we get this hilarious end, typical o’ Krugman:

Unfortunately, that sort of thing, aside from being inherently a bad practice, can all too easily backfire. Indeed, the rebound in British stocks, which are now above pre-Brexit levels, is already causing some backlash against conventional economists and their Chicken Little warnings.

Commenter ReaganAnd30YearsOfWrong gave the perfect response:

Krugman thinks economists still have credibility. Seriously.

But back to Brennan: he describes his point in the way most thorough scientists do: some clumsy metaphor ’bout a doctor who apparently knows nothing ’bout medicine & is basing his views on “prejudice” & “whishful thinking” putting a gun to your head & forcing you to use his treatment. That social sciences like economics & politics are significantly less certain than chemistry–hence why they’re called “soft sciences”–is apparently beyond this brilliant “ethicist.” He contrasts this with monarchy, which is apparently knowledgeable doctors doing such to serve their own interests (actually, that’s meritocracy; last time I checked, monarchs don’t have to pass civics tests to be born to the right family). He then offers some made-up “epistocracy” as a 3rd option–an option that he describes incredibly vaguely so that you have to buy his book to actually know what it is, which no one in their right mind would do. All he says is that it involves some reapportioning o’ voting power based on knowledge. Since what is & isn’t “knowledgeable” is ultimately decided by humans, that makes this a circular-logic affair–a brilliant basis for a political system (not surprising from a market thumper, since markets work the same way). Presumably, he implies that colleges–¡which produced such brilliant minds as Brennan, as well as Mankiw, George W. Bush, & pretty much every politician!–determine voting, which would make them electoral manipulators, if not outright oligarchs.

He then admits that he has no evidence that this system would be any better than “democracy” (it should be pointed out that Brennan makes an outright contradiction when he variously calls western societies “democratic” & “republican,” while, accurately, distinguishing these 2 concepts), &, in fact, has no evidence for anything. Essentially, this “ethicist” is just pissing into the wind (that must be the “horse-piss” Marx warned us ’bout).

He then concludes the article by complaining ’bout an unproven (a’least by him in this article) rise in “angry, resentful” “nationalist, xenophobic, & racist” movements that pad out their word count with redundant words, & claims that they are low-information voters, which he also provides no evidence for. He seems to imply that those who voted for Brexit are these stupid racist assholes–my own much mo’ concise term for what he said–without any evidence proving that Brexit voters were particularly racist or stupid–he only proved that some Britons became mo’ curious ’bout what the European Union was hours after voting, without any knowledge o’ what side those Britons preferred or whether these Britons e’en voted @ all, & without any evidence that these Britons were anywhere close to the majority.

Not included in this article is any serious look @ the reasons given for Brexit, though the internet, being the internet, is hardly free o’ it. For instance, Steve Keen @ that den o’ the resentful bigoted peasants, Forbes, offers some reasons–ironically, including the lack o’ democracy in the European Union. Brennan himself offers no economic insight on why Brexit might be bad; but considering he’s the writer o’ Markets without Limits, we can guess that he himself is a “low-information voter,” by his own definition, since not e’en the most raving market-thumper economist would e’er support such a thing.

But e’en the liberal critics o’ Brexit rarely talk ’bout the specifics o’ why Brexit would be so bad, other than that some o’ the people who support it happen to be racists, which is such an obvious ad hominem attack–‘specially for a college-educated “ethicist,” whom you’d s’pose would have a solid understanding o’ logic 101, which only shows how o’errated such “prestigious” colleges are when they turn out such dopes as Brennan. Rarely do they e’en discuss the questions o’ how democratic the European Union is or the way it limits deficit spending, or simply the fact that it has failed to improve Europe’s recessions & unemployment problems for almost a decade–&, in fact, has done worse than the US. This last criticism could be applied to economists in general, as well, although they could use the alibi that some governments ignore them, anyway.

Actually, sadly, the only coherent left-wing criticism o’ Brexit I heard was from a slap-dash website from anarchists (which, granted, still adhominems Brexit by pointing out people who supported it–ignoring that such corporate conspiracies as gay marriage have also been funded by rich people), wherein they point out that the assumption that austerity would’ve been prevented–or would be ended–by a lack o’ Britain involvement in the EU is foolish.

That’s a common problem I’ve seen ‘mong “free trade” supporters, & the fact that many o’ the people I’ve seen complain ’bout Brexit, such as Brennan, Krugman, & Noah Smith, ‘mong others, are big proponents o’ “free trade,” that may ‘splain this. “Free trade” pushers, in addition to applying an immensely propagandist & dishonest label (usually this is “free” for people with money, but quite restricting on governments to the behest o’ bigger organizations, like the EU itself, as well as usually involving stronger restrictions in terms o’ copyright), oft simply insult “free trade” skeptics rather than actually engage any o’ the ideas they present. I’m reminded o’ economist Charles Wheelan in Naked Economics–admittedly a book meant for the “dumb masses,” & thus dumbed down e’en further than Samuelson or Mankiw–essentially just criticizes skepticism o’ “free trade” as “they throw rocks @ windows,” in reference to the NAFTA protests in Seattle. Similarly, here, rather than engage critics o’ Brexit, they would rather depict them as the most vulgar o’ racists–e’en Steve Keen, who not only attacks racists in the linked article (which doesn’t mean much by itself), but also says he supports open immigration, while criticizing aspects that have nothing to do with race @ all. Which, in a sense, is simply a way for them to hypocritically demonstrate their prejudice gainst the average working class people–the depiction o’ them as resentful ignorant racists is an ol’ stereotype. But then, the major hypocrisy o’ western culture is the way it demonizes racism, but upholds rich supremacy, e’en though e’en economists admit they can’t prove that people who are poor did anything themselves to deserve it, & that one’s wealth is heavily influenced by aspects they can’t control, such as one’s wealth @ birth.

That’s the most mystifying part o’ so many o’ these laissy lib & economist “meritocrats” so critical o’ the “dumb masses”: these so-called “meritocrats” are usually dumber than the average person. That &, no different from Brennan’s monarchy doctor analogy, their true goal is to serve themselves, not the majority for whom they reveal they hold nothing but contempt.

To be fair, I thought The Atlantic’s article was rather balanced–as good a summary o’ the issues as you could probably do in such short space. They e’en mention what I think is a legitimate critique o’ referendums as a form o’ democracy: that narrowing questions to just “yes” or “no” still stifles & manipulates the public. (The Anarchist Writers page does the same, creating an odd situation in which moderate liberals & anarcho-socialists agree.)

I would actually say I have mixed views ’bout both the European Union & “free trade”–not the least o’ which being a less Orwellian name for the latter. For 1, one could point out that this “democracy” in regards to an international issue excludes others in the world, which is the ethical equivalent o’ a plot o’ private land within a country voting within itself to secede from its country so it doesn’t have to obey its laws. As The Anarchist Writers article points out, it’s simply the replacement o’ neoliberal superstitions with nationalist superstitions–& superstitions are still superstitions. Honestly, to call anything limited within a certain nationality “democracy” is as erroneous as calling voting ‘tween just a small elite “democracy”–it’s what we call “oligarchy.” The very definition o’ “democracy” is that it includes everyone; thus the only true “democracy” is international. Anyone who praises national democracy but criticizes oligarchy is simply a hypocrite, since they follow the same logic. & anyone who supports socialism–or a’least has skepticism toward income distribution–are just as hypocritical for assuming that the current distribution o’ nations is just simply due to historical tradition.

That said, forcing the public to not be superstitious–& I will agree that the masses can be superstitious–won’t fix anything, ‘specially since we can’t assure that the elite won’t be superstitious, as can be proven by their love for simplistic “economic” models. & that said, nor should one mindlessly support what the masses believe just ’cause they believe in it. That would be corrupt–a self-perpetuating circle o’ the masses following the masses simply ’cause the masses say so: a circle jerk.

But we already have the best solution that could already exist: democracy with freedom o’ speech. We let the majority decide & we try to urge & educate the majority as much as possible, without forcing gainst them.

But perhaps ‘stead o’ simply throwing ad hominem attacks @ skeptics & trying to crush public will when they dare to defy them, supporters could try to have a slight semblance o’ compromise & maybe such extreme rebukes gainst them wouldn’t happen.

But then ‘gain, the fact that the so-called experts refuse to be reasonable might just be evidence that having the public rely on them to help them is futile–‘specially when they think so li’l o’ the public. Quite the opposite, it shows that the public refusing to submit to the will o’ an elite that despises them so much is the smartest decision they could e’er make.

¿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.