Due to the success¹ o’ my recent review o’ a review, I decided to do ‘nother o’ an e’en mo’ ridiculous review I read a while ago.

I read ’bout this book by a guy whose name, Moviebob, is vaguely familiar to me—I guess he’s ‘nother 1 o’ those video reviewers &/or Let’s Players—that is described in some places as being like a “Let’s Play” in written form—which, now that I think ’bout it, is actually Let’s Play in its original form, if one actually knows the history o’ its development @ Something Awful…

But this seemed to be a mo’ in-depth, descriptive version, which interested me. I actually experimented with the idea o’ creating haiku or poems or stories that try to depict video game levels in words. However, sites like Fangamer, where it’s sold, & Good Reads seem to rate the book rather lowly, which makes me wary to pay $8, ’cause I’m cheap.

I thought I’d try stand-‘lone reviews, since I for some reason thought they’d be mo’… I dunno, ¿high quality? I can’t imagine why, considering my low satisfaction with reviews from high-profile gaming websites, whether it be Jeremy Parish @ 1up showing the world he thinks Donkey Kong Country demands you to collect every banana to get 100% or some creep @ Destructoid dedicating an entire review o’ Shantae & the Pirate’s Curse to telling the whole world how much he likes to masturbate to a pixelated middle-eastern stereotype dance & li’l ’bout the actual game’s gameplay.

But this review makes those look like they were written by Roger Ebert… or, a’least a Roger Ebert that actually liked video games & respected them as art.

I don’t know whether I should’ve been tipped off 1st when I realized this website was named “Reaxxion” (Tip: if you want to look badass, don’t take techniques from Linkin Park) or the fact that the page opened with 1 o’ those o’erused popups that pretends its not a popup asking me to sign up to receive their junk mail—I mean, find out the ¡3 ways I’m being lied to by the lamestream media, man! & this truly is the “lamestream” media, ’cause only the most bored fucks in the world would give a shit ’bout media surrounding electronic toys (which is why I’m dedicating an article to it). Maybe it should’ve been the fact that the reviewer’s image is a hand holding a gun & a personal description, “Just a man who isn’t sure if he wants to save the Princess or watch the Kingdom burn.” I hope you’re strapped up for some ¡edgy shit, yo!

O, but lets get into the review itself:

In much the same way a T-bone steak can be hard to properly grill, this is a hard book to review.

(Laughs). There are a list o’ trite ways to open a review that make me instantly groan, & a simile or metaphor is right up there with a famous quote.

Just as a T-bone steak is really two smaller steaks, this book is really two smaller books in one.

I think the way to make this immensely arduous task o’ reviewing a book that is truly 2 smaller books would be to review the book like one would review 2 smaller books. I’d hate to see this guy try reviewing Super Mario All-Stars: “¡I don’t get it! It’s just 1 game, but then it’s got many games in it. ¡What insanity!”

But apparently his solution is to start with good ol’ ad hominem attacks. & this is where the review, for me, veered from the tedious sloppiness o’ most o’ the web to “¿What the fuck’s this reviewer’s problem?” ¿You know what I want to know most before I read a book ’bout Super Mario Bros. 3? “¿What’s the writer’s political views? ¿Are they idiotic?” (Note: reviewer doesn’t elaborate on how Moviebob’s political views are “idiotic”) “¿What’s their views on some random woman who made some videos ’bout video games & some random people who obsessively hate her?”

Nowhere does this reviewer e’er state that Moviebob’s political/feminist views play a large part in this book ’bout a video game in which an Italian plumber hops on turtles in a fungal realm with sapient hills & clouds, nor do any other reviewers. ¡I’m almost o’ the belief that they hardly show up @ all!² Which makes me wonder why this reviewer brought up the subject @ all.

But let’s give this reviewer credit: he didn’t let vaguely idiotic political views or vaguely shitty behavior toward people who don’t agree with them hurt his professionalism, so he admits that he liked “some of [Moviebob’s] videos.” Which videos, he doesn’t say, ‘course. The point is that he wants to emphasize how much he doesn’t let Moviebob’s unrelated political views affect how much he likes or dislikes a book ’bout Mario, which is, ‘course, why he brings it up constantly. ‘Cause logic.

All right, so we’re 3 paragraphs in, & no relevant info has been given. If this were 1 o’ those corrupt lamestream websites ’bout video games with those corrupt editors, they might ask the reviewer to cut out such filler. But let’s give this review a chance: e’en The Grapes of Wrath takes a while to get good.

In the first main part Bob goes through a rather short history of Mario. It’s decent but forgettable as it’s nothing a Mario fan, even a casual one, isn’t likely to know.

All right, so we have actual relevant analysis. Granted, it’s not a crime that’s bad ‘nough to be “disappointing,” since pretty much any book o’ this type would probably have something like this for completion’s sake.

& then it veers back into ad hominem. He calls it “cringe worthy [sic]” that Moviebob as a teen refused to accept that the Super Mario Bros. movie was shitty & that he was disappointed ’bout Yoshi’s Island establishing Mario & Luigi being born in The Mushroom Kingdom ‘stead o’ Brooklyn. Considering there are adults that still obsess o’er these things, I think Moviebob looks good in comparison.

The rest of this section really doesn’t have that much to do with Mario. He goes on to basically give a short life story. I for one didn’t care for this bait and switch on Bob’s part. Just because no one in their right mind would pay to read your autobiography doesn’t mean you need to sneak that crap into a book on Mario 3.

(Laughs.) Well, I, for 1, don’t care for your bait-&-switch: just ’cause no one in their right mind would e’en load the page for free to see you rant ’bout wimpy feminist dorks doesn’t mean you need to sneak that crap into a review ’bout a book on Mario 3.

I’m sorry: Moviebob’s “idiotic” political views do push themselves in, apparently, when he mentions being punished for badly reviewing The Passion of Christ. This discussion takes up ’bout a page—less than 1% o’ the book.

The reviewer says we should assume that ’twas Moviebob’s fault due to “shitty behavior” that still goes unexplained, but we shouldn’t assume that the people who received this “shitty behavior” from Moviebob that this reviewer elides to didn’t do something to deserve it.

I mean, if we wanted to get into ad hominem attacks, this is the worst website to do it on, considering how controversial its owner is. ¿Why shouldn’t I assume these people aren’t making up these stories o’ “shitty behavior” & aren’t just writing this as a hit piece gainst someone with a different ideology? Nothing like Big Rigs calling Sonic 2006 shit.

The problem is, unlike this review, Moviebob ne’er hides this “bait-&-switch”: the Fangamer description clearly states, “A history of the Super Mario franchise, and of the author’s own history growing up alongside the legendary series [emphasis mine].” & that’s exactly what he does: most o’ it is him (admittedly babbling tritely) ’bout his experiences growing up with Mario. It also only takes up ’bout a 4th o’ the book, while taking up the majority o’ this review.

I actually had mixed views ’bout the way Moviebob handled this book. I actually prefer the personal aspects, since they weren’t just an inferior version o’ the Mario Wiki. After all, the only thing that makes this book different from the millions o’ other works ’bout Super Mario Bros. 3 is the fact that it’s written by him. On the other hand… yeah, it does get a li’l self-pitying—though, ironically, for the opposite reason this reviewer gives. The truth is, looking @ Moviebob’s description o’ his life… he seems perfectly ordinary. His worst problems growing up were apparently having ADD, getting mediocre grades, & being looked @ as uncool as a kid. So, he’s basically like a million other middle class white nerds. ¡The scandal!

This reviewer, meanwhile, has the opposite view: he praises the bland encyclopedic parts, while expressing his disgust @ the fact that Moviebob mentions anything ’bout things that actual adults deal with, like dying grandparents or buying a house… which ironically makes Moviebob look like the normal adult & this reviewer look like the weird 1… ‘cept he’s the one calling the other weird. So, he’s not only stupidly reviewing a book ’cause he doesn’t like people who mention having dying grandparents, he’s also doing so with no self-awareness.

& then we have this:

What sort of mental state leaves a person so afraid of having a little downtime?

One that isn’t a lazy bum.

I’m reminded of that line from a song by Pink: “The quiet scares me cause it screams the truth.”

(Laughs). So deep.

& then we get the conclusion, where he states that the book’s only problem apparently is that Moviebob is a “self-righteous socialist asshole,” unlike a self-righteous MRA asshole, like him. I want you to keep this point in mind for the next few parts.

The key point:

When he’s actually on topic it’s a decent read, but when he’s describing the hot mess that is his life it’s terrible. And why wouldn’t his life be a mess? He’s a social justice warrior. The whole social justice philosophy is all about embracing loserhood.

¿Did I read the same book this reviewer did? ‘Cause if so, this reviewer is apparently so privileged that middle-class-raised media reviewers who have family members who die & who got mediocre grades & were looked down @ as “uncool” in school are “hot messes.” Man, if that’s what he thinks a “hot mess” is, he should meet some o’ the people I’ve known—& they don’t e’en whine as much ’bout their problems.

I’m sorry, but I can’t imagine an MRA, or anyone, writing a book ’bout Super Mario Bros. 3 & not look like a loser. If he wants to read ’bout badasses with guns for dicks who ride hearses made o’ $ million bills, Fangamer isn’t the place to look, bud.

I would almost, and I stress ALMOST, recommend this book to all my fellow nerds. It could inspire you. Inspire you to hit the gym, ask that cute girl you know out, go in for that promotion at work.

OK, ¿now what relevance does this have to Super Mario Bros. 3? You were complaining ’bout how this is a bad book ’bout Super Mario Bros. 3, ¿but recommend that he work out? That’s sort o’ like how I become better @ reviewing rock music by entering hot-dog-eating contests. Maybe if this reviewer spent less time “hitting the gym,” as he claims, & returned to high school to learn how to construct coherent ideas he could write a better review.

I want to remind you that this reviewer criticized Moviebob for being “self-righteous” while anal-retentively scrutinizing him for not sharing specific personal interests that are completely irrelevant to the book he’s reviewing—¡’cause that’s totally tolerant & e’en-minded! That’s kind o’ like how I only read books written by people who have Black Sabbath on their MP3 playlist.

After all, you don’t want to end up like Movie Bob do you?

Wait, ¿is the crux o’ his review that this book is bad ’cause Moviebob’s fat? ¿Is that why he needs to “hit the gym”? ¿So the reviewer doesn’t have to imagine a fat guy tapping fingers on a keyboard whenever he reads this? Man, I’d hate to see his review o’ The Game o’ Thrones.

So, after… that, I was so intrigued by what a peculiar mess this review was & looked up this site & saw that it’s pretty much a half-assed “moral substitute” to the evil “liberal-biased” video game media that claims to be “fair-&-balanced,” while being e’en mo’ biased & worse than the mainstream. ¿Rememeber when Kotaku dedicated an entire review o’ a video game to how terrible ’twas ’cause its creator had a penis? ¿Remember when 1up panned a game ’cause its developers went bowling on Sundays.

But we’re not done laughing: this website has a set o’ community commandments that members o’ the cult must chant if they want to be allowed to write for such a prestigious establishment. I can only imagine that the writers here then go on to bitch ’bout violations o’ “freedom o’ speech” when other websites ban them from other places for infringing those places’ community rules.

1. Men do not become more violent, sexist, or racist because they play video games.

They’ll have to add the exception, “’less they’re drunk,” since I have an unquestionable counter example in that case.

I can’t be surprised that people who can’t spell “reaction” properly can’t understand the thinnest slice o’ subtlety & can’t tell the difference ‘tween a video game having bigoted content & magically making people bigoted. Based on that logic then, the fact that there are people who read Mein Kampf & didn’t transform into antisemites proves that Mein Kampf isn’t bigoted @ all.

Gamers should not be shamed for a hobby that does not cause harm to others.

Well, ‘less it makes them fat or have dying grandparents, or they like that hobby so much that they care ’bout the origin stories o’ them. Then they should be shamed immensely.

2. Video games are a form of entertainment that should be free of heavy-handed propaganda or ideology.

Well, damn, I guess I can’t like any World War II game or just ’bout any JRPG. ¡Damn Square & their attempts to brainwash our kids into believing in hope in a post-apocalyptic world!

3. Video game journalism should not use its influence to change or manipulate the nature of games against the wishes of the gaming public.

“Game reviews should not review games.” That’s kind o’ like that corrupt asshole, Roger Ebert, always pushing his biased opinion ’bout what movies I should watch. Um, ¿how do we objectively determine the wishes o’ the vague abstract concept known as the “gaming public”?

Um, ¿what ’bout when you said that “Parasite in City is a Great H-Game that is Full of Rape”? (Please don’t go to that link; you’ll regret it.) ¿Am I to believe that your telling me this game is great (that’s a relief: I always hate playing hentai games full o’ rape that have slippery controls) isn’t influencing the nature o’ gaming by encouraging people to buy it, & thus through the market encouraging companies to make it? ¿Or are great hentai games full o’ rape part o’ the wishes o’ the “gaming public”? ‘Cause I do know that rape is a subject that the public looks fondly on.

4. A clear line must be drawn between advertising and editorial content (read our ethics policy).

That’s a nice way to ‘splain ‘way the fact that nobody wanted to advertise on your site.

¿What ’bout site-runner, “Roosh” (the raddest names are those that are just sounds children make when riding a rollercoaster) whorishly splaying links to his off-site content in the footer, meshed together with the on-site links?

Site content must be free of bias or moneyed interests.

(Laughs.) As we saw earlier, this site is definitely free from bias.

5. Gamers share a collection of values and beliefs that denote an identity which should be treated with respectful consideration.

What those “values” & “beliefs” are that they s’posedly share isn’t delineated, nor is there any evidence given that all people who play video games have uploaded their minds into a single mind borg. I’m quite certain I’ve played games quite a few times, & I sure as fuck don’t share your used values, you filthy commies–Sorry, I should use the PC term: you self-righteous socialist assholes.

Gaming sites should serve gamers by providing them with the type of content they want to read (send us your comments).

Which no gaming site does, hence why no gaming site has comments sections, & hence why every gaming site has gone out o’ business from a lack o’ ad views.

Then ‘gain, if gamers tolerate hours o’ grinding in the 270th RPG, maybe they’ll tolerate reading articles they hate.

Heterosexual men should not be shamed for enjoying things designed to appeal to heterosexual men.

But transgenders should be shamed as much as possible. (Note: if you read that link, you’ll see that it has nothing to do with video games & is all political, including specific attacks ‘gainst “leftists” & “Democrats.” Ne’ertheless, Reaxxion is super fair-&-balanced & doesn’t indulge in biased propaganda @ all.)

There is non-harmful entertainment value in traditional story lines involving masculine men and feminine women.

But content that’s different is harmful, ’cause MRAs are spoiled babies who cry avalanches if a single book is written by a guy who doesn’t work out much or if a single game has a gay option, ’cause they don’t comprehend such things as “niche interests.” E’en worse, companies will continue to ignore this tenet ’cause they’re smart ‘nough to realize these evil other people still have money & that the only way to get these evil other people’s money is to give them what they want, not what MRAs, who already spent all their money on all the Dead or Alive & Tomb Raider games, want.

¿So how’s Reaxxion doing now, anyway? Well, it’s done updating. Apparently this site that was totally done for the passion o’ gaming & doing manly things wasn’t making ‘nough money, so fuck it, pull the plug. ¡Good to see that moneyed interests aren’t affecting things @ all! This is shocking coming from someone who admitted they hadn’t played video games since 2000.

Also, what’s this horseshit:

Reaxxion will not try to jam ideology down your throat like the existing gaming sites. We won’t tell you to go to the gym [emphasis mine]…

You had 1 promise, & you fucked up & let it slip through this review. I guess e’en Roosh didn’t read that review before publishing it. Can’t blame him (well, I can blame him publishing it, though).

So… We have a site that portrays itself as the… ¿Fox News o’ gaming sites? ¿& it’s run by a guy who doesn’t e’en play video games? ¿& he pretty much admits that he’s just exploiting video games as a propaganda device to push a certain agenda?:

I aim to protect the interests of heterosexual Western males, a category I’m in. [Excised large chunk o’ conspiracy rants gainst the vagina borg to prevent readers from falling asleep.] So while I don’t play video games, the idea of starting a pro-#gamergate site is compatible with my overall mission.

Note: I love how in that “a category I’m in” he outright admits that he only supports the political ideology he does ’cause it serves himself.

It’s like this “Roosh” guy predicted I’d start a blog that, for some reason I don’t e’en know, has both articles making fun o’ right-wing politics & making fun o’ bad video game content & created this whole site just so I’d have the perfect subject to mock—¡2 articles for the price o’ 1, baby!

---

Footnotes:

Lord Keynes is so fervent a follower o’ the “Post-Keynesian” cult that he literally named himself after Keynes—something I don’t e’en think Marxists or Misesians have e’er done; & when you look mo’ cultish than Marxists & Austrian-schoolers, you know you’re fucking something up.

Anyway, he wrote his own list o’ principles for his Keynesian Manifesto for Milquetoast Liberals that isn’t based on hardly any arguments—’cept the controversial proposition 9, which I’ll get to—so much as knee-jerk rants gainst petty annoyances some yahoos on YouTube have caused him. He demands that the vacuous blob known only abstractly as “the Left” obey these laws @ once or suffer the worst punishment known to civilization: being made fun o’ by a tiny cobble o’ rich white men whom the vast majority o’ the world have ne’er heard o’. I’m sure these thought criminals will totally fall on their knees & beg “Lord” Keynes for forgiveness, saying, “¡You’re totally right! I have seen the light o’ your clearly self-evident Bible passages,” & not laugh in derision @ him & forget ’bout it when they get distracted by some silly “Lenincat” picture, or whatever stupid shit Millennials like to waste their time on.

The 1st rule is that one must give up Marxism & bourgeoisie big-C “Communism” (li’l-C “communism’s” still OK, though, as well as “socialism,”—¡Such as Magical Socialism™! ¡We’re in the clear!—“collectivism,” & whatever other meaningless words you like). This is ’cause believing in these things will automatically make you totalitarian, since some Marxists ran totalitarian countries (some Keynesians did, too, & some Marxists won seats in parliamentary systems; but that’s irrelevant). See, Engels—who is Marx’s alter-ego, by the way—once said that revolution was “authoritarian,” & Keynes interprets that to mean “totalitarian,” e’en though Engels clearly meant “the masses committing mass violence”—also known as war, which is how “revolutions” kind o’ work—not a tiny group controlling the majority completely (to be fair, said “revolutions” could certainly be described as “horrific” by people who find not living in a miserable war zone to be quite comfortable; just not “totalitarian.”). Clearly, believing in Marxism means believing everything Marx believed. Similarly, in order to believe in Keynesianism, one must believe in eugenics, since Keynes believed that¹, & we don’t want to be a hypocrite, ¿do we, Lord Keynes, Master Debater?

The 2nd rule is basically the true crux o’ the 1st, making the 1st redundant. Great editing, Lord Keynes.

It’s the most important: everyone must obey my particular ideology. It’s strange how many ideologies, no matter how different, demand this rule. & it’s e’en stranger how there’s so many people who refuse to obey it.

Still, we shouldn’t discount Lord Keynes, for he did give a solid defense o’ Post-Keynesianism. It’s just truly well hidden (well, ‘cept for lists o’ books you have to pay for–¡You can join the Grand Order o’ Keynes’s Ghost for only 20 payments o’ $19.99 if you call within the next 10 minutes!)

&, hey, the 3rd rule is just an extension o’ the 2nd rule, banning e’en mo’ thought crimes that conflict with God’s chosen economic philosophy (‘cept, in God’s defense, a’least mo’ than 1% o’ the population gives a shit ’bout God, whereas nobody cares ’bout Post-Keynesianism, or any economic philosophy, save something ‘long the lines o’, “the government’s doing too much for other people & not ‘nough for me”).

4 & 5 are both the same, & thus shouldn’t be divided. It’s the same PC schlock that Jonathan Chait spewed: Lord Keynes’s butthurt ’bout some “real” (no evidence given, though, so we’ll just have to trust the unquestionable wisdom o’ Lord Keynes’s Li’l Red Blog Post) conspiracy o’ feminists & civil rights fanatics to keep idiots like Lord Keynes from saying stupid things—as we can clearly see he’s unable to do in this blog post he didn’t post.

Also note that gender, racial, & other class issues “draw attention” from “serious” economic issues, says the unbiased economist. I’m sure every black person reading this (0) will be thinking, “You’re right: my fear o’ being murdered by corrupt police is so unimportant. I should focus all my attention on Lord Keynes’s need to constantly feel smug superiority @ having his philosophical neuroses stroked, since he’s so important, & I’m just some shabby regular person.”

Though many o’ these points show it (see proposition 9 later), I think this best shows what I think would be the best advice: ignore the sham that is the “Left.” &, better: women, black people, LGBQT, & people who think Super Mario World is better than Super Mario Bros. 3 (sniff, we’re the true victims): I’d recommend you tell Post-Keynesians to go fuck themselves & ignore them. Lord Keynes has already said flat-out that he doesn’t give a shit ’bout your feelings or concerns; ¿why should you care ’bout his? He can’t e’en say, like most exploitive moderate liberals, that you need Post-Keynesians ’cause they’re purportedly the only ones who can save you from the concentration camps that conservatives are planning to set up if they have power; he already said straight-out that he considers your issues utterly unimportant—in fact, worse, that they are hindering distractions. ¿Why not consider Post-Keynesian pseudoscientific garbage a distraction from true, concrete issues & ignore them?

See, that’s what the “Left” is: it’s a way for narrow interests to try snaring everyone else into serving them without caring ’bout others’ interests. It’s nothing but political narcissism. & that ‘splains why the “Left” is such a vague blob o’ a concept: what is “true” leftism depends on whom you’re talking to. Obviously a woman who’s been raped (or just ‘fraid to be, ’cause look @ the statistics on sexual assault) will consider feminism to be the utmost o’ leftism, just as a poor white male will consider economics the heart o’ leftism, or rich white men who spend their lives studying abstract bullshit that’s ’bout as important as the statistics in Pokémon will consider the heart to be some abstract bullshit ’cause that’s what’s most important in their empty vessel o’ a wasted existence.

The 6th principle calls for Western leaders who commit war crimes to be actually charged for it, e’en though the chances o’ such calls actually succeeding are ’bout the same as the chances o’ the Zombie Marx rising from his grave & riding in on his flying phallosaurus to bring communism & letsstickdicksineachothersbumsism to everyone—as prophesized in The Economicon. This would be especially hard in the US, where I’m pretty certain every president’s committed some war crimes–a’least according to Lord Keynes’s & my favorite almost-dead white male.

Hey, wait a minute: so class issues are distractions from the “serious” economic issues, ¿but putting politicians no longer e’en in power in jail isn’t? Lord Keynes must truly not care ’bout people who aren’t white & male.

The 7th principle is that leftists must finally stop spewing such nonsense that Super Mario World is better than Super Mario—

O, all right, the true 7th principle is just ‘nother dig @ postmodernism—which is just the name everyone gives to any philosophy that one can’t understand, whether it’s due to that person’s idiocy or the philosophy’s idiocy with communication (to be fair, it’s usually the latter). It also strangely argues that the left should stop being so open ’bout religion in politics & school—as the left always is, ‘course.

So, basically, my version would’ve been as relevant.

This becomes funnier when Sir Phillip Pilkington–disguised as “The Illusionist” to protect him from all the communist spies lurking ’bout who won’t let him join their club–calls LK a hypocrite for supporting what rich organizations called “colleges” call “science” in every other subject, but criticizes mainstream economics–which, by definition, makes Lord Keynes “fringe” in economics. Lord Keynes is, ‘course, not impressed by this logic; clearly the economists aren’t scientists, while the others are, ’cause that’s just objectively true–I just say so.

You appear to be saying that when policy-makers need advice they shouldn’t — as a general principle — turn to experts?

Again, this is totally absurd. The problem you are referring to is that they are asking the WRONG experts **in some cases**. Are you going to tell me that if a UK government called in leading UK Post Keynesian economists to give policy advice that this would be wrong?

No, see, the narrow elites who try to control people are OK if they’re “Post-Keynesians,” ’cause “Post-Keynesians” are “good,”–we could e’en call them “proletarian”–while the “Neoclassicals” are “bad”–“bourgeois,” we could say.

“The Illusionist” has a hilarious response to Lord Keynes’s claim that he believes that the earth revolving round the sun is a conspiracy by the League o’ Evil Scientists:

That’s not what I’m saying. Read my comments and try again.

This is similar to Keynes’s reaction–in the comments o’ this 100th time he reiterated his views on the Labor Theory o’ Value, since the man loves padding his blog to a billion posts–to someone criticizing his interpretation while still criticizing Marx–also known as this mysterious species LK has ne’er heard o’ before called “someone with a speck o’ independent thought”:

So, wait, you are not a Marxist but you write comments that sound like you are defending the LTV, the core of Marxism?

Lord Keynes’s 4-bit brain short-circuited @ this logical impossibility so much that he somehow missed the “An Anarchist FAQ” under the guy’s name. Reading comprehension’s muy importante, LK.

But this just demonstrates Lord Keynes’s simple-minded thinking. Though sometimes, just due to the law o’ averages, he’s logical or accurate (when there are authentic flaws in his opponent ideologies), it’s clear that he doesn’t care a pixel ’bout truth, but ’bout trying to bulk his petty ideology on the flimsiest foundation possible. & despite his sneers gainst the crazy, extreme laissez-faire libertarians & Marxists, he consistently proves himself to be just as theocratic–it’s just that the Bible he’s thumping is Keynes’s works, ‘stead o’ Marx’s or Rothbard’s.

Anyway, the 8th principle is Lord Keynes’s hate gainst the EU, supposedly in support for “national democracy” (though without supporting authentic, direct democracy within those actual countries) but truly ’cause it’s a block to his ideology. That he calls it “one of the most outrageously regressive forces in the world today” is hilarious. Forget ’bout the distraction that is the Middle Easterners being blown into Mortal Kombat gibs by drones; ¡the EU’s policies are inspired by a belief in exogenous money!

& the 9th, controversial principle, is that Europeans need to learn to stop immigrants from coming in, which leftists bizarrely support—almost as if they seem to care ’bout these “racial equality” distractions that keep getting the ‘way o’ poor white bigots getting their rightfully-earned welfare—unlike those nonwhites, who are just sponges.

This is given 3 reasons:

1. Consistent immigrant tolerance is apparently “anarcho-capitalist libertarian,” & thus “crazy.” It would cause “catastrophe” that “everyone sensible can see”—¡it’s so obvious that Lord Keynes doesn’t e’en have to bother providing evidence!

2. The majority is gainst immigrant tolerance, & rather than, I dunno, maybe trying to change the majority’s mind while keeping some modicum o’ independent thought, we should just obey what the majority says. So much for communists being “hive-minded” & Keynesians for supporting “liberal individualism.” That the group o’ eligible voters from which this “majority” comes doesn’t include said immigrants doesn’t make this fact any mo’ surprising than the fact that rich people generally oppose welfare for poor people—it’s this li’l thing we call “narcissism.” But this becomes laughable when they pretend that this is based on some “liberal principles” & not the fact that they just-as-greedily shove classes lower that themselves out o’ economic prosperity with police force as the conservative businesses do to European-born lower-classes.

3. Immigrants get in the way o’ pure-born Westerners getting mo’ money. Why leftists should care mo’ ’bout spoiled Westerners than starving immigrants from war-torn countries is a mystery. But then, that’s the pattern o’ hypocritical moderate liberals: they pretend that they’re fighting gainst those greedy, powerful rich people while helping the middle class fuck o’er authentically poor people. Since they don’t give a shit ’bout other people, the rational response is to not give a fuck ’bout them. Fuck Europeans: let them starve as hard as Africans.

Also, apparently these immigrants aren’t authentically destitute people desperate for a way to stay ‘live, but a conspiracy created by Big Business® to foil the working class.

---

Addendum:

Also, ¿am I the only one who realized that “Post-Keynesian” means “after Keynes”–as in, rejecting Keynes & going past him? ¿Why, then, are so many “Post-Keynesians” such worshippers o’ Keynes?

¿Am I also the only one who’s noticed that any ideology beginning with “post” is vapid nonsense?

---

Other fine work by Lord Keynes:

Dead White Males Defended by White Male (& from the Looks o’ Him, Probably on his Way toward Death) Noam Chomsky

All right, all right: sorry for being so “politically incorrect” with you Anti-PC Nazis. Wouldn’t want any white men to cry.

OK, I understand plenty o’ black people saying, “Hey, you know, maybe I can like some Aristotle, too, e’en if he doesn’t have the same amount o’ melanin in him—I mean, I don’t complain ’bout all the whites I see rapping ‘long with Jay-Z.” & since I can imagine tons o’ black people thinking that way, I’m just thinking, ¿wouldn’t it have helped Lord Keynes’s case if he could’ve found just 1 black person saying this, & not some white guy pretending to know how black people think? If the Republican Party can find a’least 3, it shouldn’t be that hard for Post-Keynesians. I mean, you guys don’t want to be whiter than the Republican Party, ¿do you? That’s like solar-eclipse-flare white.

Karl Marx’s Night Out on London Town

This is meant to slander the Zombie Marx as some uncouth rapscallion who would ne’er fit in with clean bougie types like Keynes; but ‘stead it makes me wonder why Keynes ne’er did badass shit like this (& still produced mediocre economics based on just-as-simplistic deductive bullshit).

Marx’s Phrenology and Racial Views

¡& here’s ‘nother! (¿What, no mention o’ Marx calling Ferdinant Lassalle the N-word, & calling his “importunity” “nigger-like,” as well as mocking all his filthy Jewishness, all ’cause he wouldn’t give Marx money so Marx could pay his rent [¿Didn’t Lassalle realize that his interest & capital were guaranteed?]? I guess in this case Lord Keynes’s rabid anti-PC fanaticism actually supplanted his rabid anti-Marxist fanaticism somehow.)

My favorite part is the Glenn-Beck-style bullshit @ the end:

Finally, lest I be accused of trying to use ad hominem argument, let me state that of course none of this disproves any of Marx’s ideas on economics at all, which stand and fall on their own merits. I am simply interested in Marx’s personal opinions and intellectual ideas [emphasis on the apex o’ bullshittery mine]

& then there’s the comments section o’ “Karl Popper on the Labor Theory of Value”

Read on as Lord Keynes somehow makes a ditzy Marxist Utopianist look less Utopianist with Lord Keynes’s “government guaranteed minimal income (say, $40,000) and transfer payments to people who lack inherited wealth or money savings” plan, that can be proven to be practical by the fact that we have a welfare system where we throw the dirty poors a few bones—that, & apparently using fantasy economies made up in Lord Keynes’s head is perfectly valid… so long as they back Post-Keynesian rules. Those familiar with Post-Keynesianism will recognize this as the same tactic neoclassicals use to defend their bullshit (¡don’t forget Noah Smith’s sci-fi thriller with the income distribution that randomly & abruptly changes!), which Post-Keynesians criticize them for. After all, Post-Keynesians are s’posed to be the ones who look @ the economy as it truly is… ‘less that gets in the way o’ moderate liberals’ equally-contrived—though mo’ boring—Utopian nonsense.

Here Lord Keynes Jerks Off to Christopher Hitchens

No surprise, he just praises Hitchens for things that follow Lord Keynes’s particular beliefs & bashes anything that strays. Anyone intelligent would find it worse to share beliefs with Hitchens, since he was a loudmouthed moron who replaced logic with bombastic style & thus soiled any ideology his lips have e’er kissed. That was why Fox News loved having him on, e’en before his conversion to neoconservativism: his loudmouthed jackassery perfectly fit the conservative stereotype o’ atheists–& Hitchens fit that shit like a latex glove.

I especially love Lord Keynes’s acute psychoanalysis skills:

[L]ike so many left-wing intellectuals and especially members of the New Left generation, he obviously thought it was “cool” to be a Marxist[.]

You could say that the Marxisms “got all the fishsticks in their grits,” as those “down with the sickness” say.

This is right up there with Mises’s The Anti-Capitalist Mentality in the study o’ bullshit ideologues pull out their asses to distract from actual logical points for which they have li’l to contribute.

Lord Keynes is stupid when he’s praising someone & he’s stupid when he’s bashing them. I sense a pattern…

Lord Keynes bitches ’bout how nobody likes the moderate left now

‘Course, this is due to the moderate left not becoming brainwashed by fringe economic pseudoscience & caring mo’ ’bout the feelings o’ psychologically-traumatized people not to be traumatized o’er privileged white idiots saying stupid shit, & not due to the moderate left just sucking ass.

This Article is Authentically Delightful to Read

¡Ha, ha, ha! ¡Yes!¡ You catch those Russian spies led by Lord Palmerston–or as most people call him, “He Who Shall Not Be Named,”–Marx! ¡They’re trying to take ‘way our bazookas!

O, all right, his critical summaries o’ Das Kapital & the Labor Theory are mostly free o’ bullshit

I’m actually mo’ bummed out by LK’s stupidity than I am by the others I mocked. I don’t have any faith in Noah Smith, Mankiw, or any o’ the numbskulls @ the churches o’ Mises to e’er become anything but clowns for me to mock; but LK could have the potential to be in the narrow category o’ people who write ’bout economics & aren’t numbskulls² if he could free himself from the clutches o’ the Cult o’ Keynes.

---

Footnotes:

[1] After all, the working class are too “drunken and ignorant” to keep from filling the world with their filth says the great Moderate Liberal Prophet who will totally be the savior for the lower class by bashing them in the most bigoted o’ terms

Lord Keynes, e’er the ideologically-blind hypocrite, would argue that Engels’s views on authoritarianism are intrinsic to communism—he did invent communism all by himself, after all—but is indignant @ the ad hominem in people who imply that Keynes’s elitist hatred o’ weaker classes has anything to do with a philosophy that supports having a tiny cabal o’ upper-class people known as a “parliament” dictate what is good for the lower classes—since the lower classes are clearly too drunken & ignorant to decide for themselves.

[2] For the record, I am not a part o’ this class–but only ’cause I don’t support any o’ your filthy bourgeois classes. Only clean bourgeois classes for me, thanks.

I was going to write an article ’bout ditzy “anti-PC liberals” like Jonathan Chait & what hypocritical whiners they are, but I found 2 articles by some hippies called Student Activism.net that are almost perfect descriptions¹:

• “Jonathan Chait Doesn’t Care About Free Speech People”
• “Jonathan Chait Demands to be Liked”
• & as a bonus, here’s Christian commie Matt Bruenig mocking Chait for hypocrisy regarding “civil” speech (publishing works based on research by white supremacists is civil, but apathy toward a magazine only Chait & a few other people care ’bout is merely a petty “beef,” as you black peoples like to say. See, you cannot deny that Chait is veritably “down with the sickness.”)

Man, writing articles is so much easier when you let other bloggers do it for you. Now I can spend my time on mo’ striking issues, like which generation o’ Pokémon is better. After all, I need to keep ‘head o’ serious institutes like Forbes & their hard-hitting financial wisdom known as “What’s the Difference Between Pokemon X and Y?” (to bad [edit: too bad I was too fucking baked to e’en bother to proof-read this article] they weren’t hard-hitting ‘nough to remember the accent o’er the E’s, the fucking plebeians).

Footnotes:

[1] ‘Cept for the missing comma in 1 title–‘less they’re talking ’bout Chait’s hatred o’ the people literally made out o’ free speech, which is something in which I’d have to agree with Chait, since that sounds horrifically eldritch.

The uncapitalized “be” in the 2nd title I have no problem with, however; Engelsists always hate all forms o’ capital, including the alphabetical kind. Don’t need your bourgeoisie big B’s, thanks; simple, honest proletarian small b’s work just fine.

Noah Smith might be in the running for the whitest white guy e’er to exist, so I’m always eager to hear his surely experienced wisdom on race issues.

After misinterpreting Cornell West’s rant gainst Ta-Nahisi Coates o’er who’s indier than thou¹ as being purely ’bout evil capitalism, when the very quote Smith puts in his article includes a list o’ problems, only 1 o’ which being capitalism’s vileness (although I guess the imperialism stuff might be connected) & giving some simplistic history lesson ’bout how revolution & vile communism lead to Stalinism—’cause all critics o’ capitalism go round slaughtering monarchs & o’erthrowing governments, you know,—Smith offers this jewel o’ advice:

If history is any guide, the only option is to increase tolerance.

¡It’s so simple! ¡We can end racism by not being racist! ¿Why haven’t we tried this? That’s right up there with that guarantee o’ becoming rich by making a lot o’ money or laissez-faire libertarian’s solution to government being not to have it anymo’. In fact, I’m not sure why Smith’s criticizing revolutionaries so much, since his advice is quite common: ¡let’s just not have the system we don’t like! I don’t know why silly black leaders like Coates or West have all o’ these complicated arguments when Smith, Certified Expert in Black Issues, made it all so simple—& therefore mo’ efficient in economics thinking. Why, it’s so simple that it’s utterly thoughtless—¡you can’t get mo’ simple than that!

I have a better idea: let’s just do what privileged ditzes like Noah Smith do without external stimulation & sedate our minds from all issues with drugs so that in our mind’s there’s no mo’ racism, poverty, responsibilities, or nothing. Let’s just completely ‘scape from reality & just babble o’er & o’er ‘gain sugary phrases like “¡Hang in there, Jere!” & “¡Be Something!”

…

Actually, now that I think ’bout it, that ‘scaping from reality thing truly does sound nice. ¿Where can I get those drugs you’re taking, Smith?

Addendum:

Also, can I think Smith for warning me gainst this “o’erthrowing capitalism in a bloody revolution” idea & warning us ’bout this “Soviet Union” thing that happened ‘hind all our backs. I can’t count all o’ the Americans who’re thinking to themselves,—’long with “I ought to start my own business” or “I ought to go to a protest,”—“you know, I think I really ought to try o’erthrowing capitalism & putting into power the dictatorship o’ the proletariat.” But then they read this blog post & slapped their foreheads. “¡I forgot all ’bout the Soviet Union & Stalin & all that stuff! & here I thought communism would be nothing but us all sticking our vaginas & dicks in each other’s bums. O well, I guess I’ll just have to douse the misery in my heart caused by 60 hours a week o’ minimum wage work that is slowly whittling my body into dust by getting drunk & masturbating, like usual.”

---

What bristles me most ’bout bohemian bourgeoisie is that though they like to depict themselves as free-thinking libertarian types, their views are actually quite soulless, repressive, & bleakly conformist to the point that they remind me o’ those cheesy stepford-smile dystopias mo’ than anything else.

I came to this epiphany ‘pon reading a Smashing Magazine article giving the usual career “advice”: look for careers that are good. As usual, the focus is on “career culture,” an incentive buzzword companies made-up as a way to sway attention from falling wages & rising work time—aspects that workers actually care ’bout. That this writer would write so blatantly as if she’s the Pointy-Haired Boss is curious. Then ‘gain, I should expect this from the “Talent Ambassador” @ “Digital Telepathy”—a truly “zany,” as you hiphoppin’ stompin’ kids say it, enterprise, you can bet your pogs.

Anyway, she says that one should only work with companies that are just like oneself, since she assumes her readers are as shallow as she is. Then she lists off specific attributes o’ companies you should look for. ¿Notice something there? She already assumes your personality & culture. You should look for companies that embrace risk ’cause surely you embrace risk. You’re looking for a computer business that puts shiny colors ‘bove actual programming quality like Apple ’cause ‘course all web designers mistake well-designed with vacuously pretty. & ‘course you value the creepy quality called “togetherness” ’cause you, too, urgently demand that your occupation simultaneously serve your needs for a cult as well as a paycheck (so much for capitalists being “individualist”—I’m kidding: no one who isn’t blatantly lying to themselves believes this).

This is a common occurrence ‘mong bohemian bourgeoisie, as I noted with Goins & those assholes @ Lifehacker: they assume everyone has the same desires, goals, & beliefs as them & damn those who don’t while @ the same time depicting themselves as open minded.

But I love the creepy implications o’ her advice:

While waiting for the interview or when exiting the office, look around you. How do people look? Happy? Miserable? What do they have on their desks? One study suggests that messy desks indicate a creative environment (perfect for designers). If you make eye contact with someone passing by, do they smile or quickly walk by without acknowledging? These are all ways to better understand the corporate culture in which you might be working.

Yes, ’cause nothing’s mo’ professional than being an anal asshole who refuses to work with anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their shallow, specific criteria o’ keeping their desks messy. I always thought creative businesses were all ’bout diversity & that shit; but I guess there has to be a line we can’t cross. I mean, if we accept coworkers with clean desks, we might as well accept coworkers who greet us by sticking their hands in our pants & stroking our genitals (for the record, I only work @ companies whose employees do this—that’s the only company culture I’m comfortable with).

& I love how while there are children who every day have to worry ’bout sawing their fucking fingers off on the machine they use all day, this asshole’s all like, “¡How dare you ruin my creativity with your neatly stacked papers! ¡How dare you distract me from thinking with the deep depression I feel after not being smiled @ when I said hello! I can’t work in these conditions!”

Also, it’s good to know that “one study” hiding somewhere out there in the wild shows that people with basic cleaning skills are incapable o’ creativity & should be avoided like AIDS. This is as opposed to our “Talent Ambassador,” who has done nothing but show her creative streak by spewing the same narrow-minded assertions every other business blogger does.

The obvious takeaway is that wise employers punish employees who don’t smile so that they can maintain the same happy-slave facade all totalitarian regimes have—including corporations. After all, the ethos o’ loving your work—“¡Whistle while you work!”—comes straight from Soviet propaganda.

This is 1 o’ the few times I’d put my coin in with Keynes: I’d rather have less work, like anyone who isn’t lying to themselves—or are privileged ditzes who aren’t truly working—thank you. However, since the left is an utter joke, I don’t see that cute “15-hour work week” will e’er happen this millennium¹ & will stick with my 40 or mo’ hours o’ misery & despair per week, thank you.

---

Footnotes:

[1] I love how the masses o’ moderate-liberal Keynesbots mock Marx for his ridiculous optimism ’bout capitalism’s collapse, but don’t mention the laughable absurdity o’ Keynes’s own predictions.

Perhaps 1 reason the left’s such a joke is that it’s impossible to find a member who doesn’t base one’s economic views on economist-worship ‘stead o’, I dunno, some semblance o’ independent thought.

May the Invisible Hand bless Austrian-schoolers & their laughably unearned hubris.

In 2014¹ Hunter Lewis @ the redundantly-named Against Crony Capitalism proved he had his finger on the pulse on economics by revealing the communistic secret Keynesians have been hiding from us in their dark-gray submarines: they used the “D” word.

That word is not, “dumbshit,” “dipship,” “douche bag,” or any other colorful term, but “depression.”

Most Keynesian economists do not want to admit that we are in another depression. They find the word painful.

Somehow, 1 o’ the most famous modern Keynesians, Paul Krugman, was able to withstand this agony to write 2 books—The Return of Depression Economics and the Crises of 2008 & End this Depression Now!, the latter o’ which predicted the depression before it happened—with these dreaded eldritch words. Please send your regards to the hospital in which he currently resides as he recovers.

‘Course, anyone with a minuscule knowledge o’ history—not the uneducated audience that Austrian-schoolers love to exploit—would know that Keynes became famous ’cause o’ the Great Depression; they’d remember that Keynesianism didn’t exist till the economy was already ruined by neoclassicalism & their dumbass paradoxical name. Such people would find Austrian-schooler’s claim that Keynesians are ‘fraid o’ the word “depression” ’bout as absurd as the claim that Marxists fear the word “exploitation” or that Christians fear the word “prayer.”

‘Course, the normal reaction to works o’ Austrian-schoolers is to laugh & go, “¿Are you fucking high, man?” That’s what makes it so entertaining.

They find it painful because it contradicts the idea that Keynesian economic ideas have ended depressions forever.

“…in the version o’ Keynesianism that resides purely in my fantasies.”

It also contradicts the idea that the massive and continuing Keynesian stimulus applied by world governments since 2008 has worked.

(Laughs.) ¿“World governments”? ¿You mean the ones in that postapocalyptic thriller you’re writing? Since there’s only 1 world with significant human societies, how are there mo’ than 1 “world governments”? ¿Or is he referring to regular national governments that happen to exist within the world, like just ’bout all human stuff? ¿Does he also call economies “world economies” or schools “world schools” to distinguish them from the intergalactic variety?

Considering the depression is blamed on neoclassicals, I don’t see how this proves anything gainst Keynesians. But then I keep forgetting that “neoclassicalism” doesn’t exist & is just a conspiracy theory drummed up by all those economist haters who be hating. In truth, neoclassicals’ supremacy is due to their superior intellect to both Keynesians & Austrian-schoolers: they’re smart ‘nough to avoid attention as much as possible, knowing that no matter what they say, the economy’s still going to be puke, anyway, since people are just going to believe their own superstitions & rich people & government officials are just going to exploit this for fast cash. ¡Like Misesians!

I argued that we were in a depression in a January article and again in April.

Well, aren’t you special.

I fucking love narcissists who act like they’re the only ones talking ’bout whatever trite bullshit they puke. Come the fuck on. ¿You know who else has been saying we’re in a depression since then? My high-school-dropout parents & siblings. I don’t see them asking for the “King Obvious 2015” award.

…Brad DeLong, one of the most prestigious Keynesians…

All right: now we’re just outright lying here.

These are after all the people who call the government creating money out of thin air “quantitative easing,” “ bond buying,” and the like…

I’m quite sure Keynesians—as well as most economists—would agree that would be called magic, since it’s impossible to create anything from thin air. ‘Gain, you shouldn’t mix up authentic governments with the warlock governments in your fantasy airport novels.

Ironically, Keynesians will be the 1st to tell you that the government doesn’t have control over how much money is created² & that, thus, attempts by the government to do so are futile. What he’s describing is Monetarism, which was created by laissez-faire libertarian Milton Friedman.

When Keynes did this, he was often being impish, as when he called newly created money ““ [sic] green cheese,” echoing the old nursery nonsense that “the moon is made of green cheese.” His acolytes have adopted the style of dissimulation, but without the slightest trace of a sense of humor.

(Laugh.) ¿What the hell is this guy babbling ’bout? ¿Did he read The General Theory? ‘Cause I did, & if this shit’s in it, it’s tucked far into a corner. “¡Damn Keynes & his green-cheese standard! ¡It’s just a way to deter savings by having money that goes moldy!”

¡How absurd o’ anyone to treat pieces o’ paper people made up as having any value divergent from that set in stone by God himself!

Although we are in a depression, it is not a depression for everyone, as is by now well known. Even so, the full hit on the middle class and the poor relative to the affluent is not adequately understood.

As opposed to the usual depressions where everyone suffers. What Lewis describes here is less the vile deeds o’ Keynesians & mo’ “economics as usual,” ‘less he can give me some situation—’gain, not including his personal historical fiction ’bout the glorious agrarian colonies o’ the 18th century—wherein poor people & rich people were treated the same. That’s ’cause the very definition o’ “rich” & “poor” is that 1 has mo’ economic benefits. “Poor” literally means “person who gets fucked o’er, economically”; if one isn’t, then one isn’t truly “poor,” ¿now are they? So ‘less he’s attacking the existence o’ economic classes—in which case I am befuddled by this magical “communistic capitalism” he seems to support—I don’t see what his prob—

Wait. ¿Is this ‘nother Marxist troll? ¿Are these Mises websites the equivalent o’ “Libertaripedia,” where every “member” is just a troll trying to sneak subversive info in? God damn it, I’m on to you sneaky commies.

He then plays the same card conservatives usually play: only accept data by certain people. Government data is untrustworthy, ’cause he says so, but data from a government official under the administration that got us into this depression in the 1st place isn’t. No rationale is given why: as is common with intellectually-authoritarian Austrian-schoolers, they decree, & you obey unquestioningly.

In Keynesian theory, it doesn’t matter whether money is spent or invested or what it is spent on or invested in. In this cockeyed view, spending more money to put people into Medicaid, paid for by borrowing from overseas or printing new money, is just as good as Apple investing in new jobs.

Um, no: that’s paid by these things called “taxes.”

Also, the latter class can also be paid for by just borrowing, which can blow up in companies’ faces if the investment doesn’t turn out well, which can cause a ripple effect that also contributes to depressions. Lewis doesn’t make any solid argument, but just strawmen: he assumes Medicaid is an inferior use o’ money than Apple investment without evidence, despite the former being used to keep people ‘live & the latter being used to make o’erpriced, inferior software that exploits those ignorant o’ computers.

Lewis would probably respond that that’s my own mean ol’ opinion & that I shouldn’t push it onto people, while giving his own biased opinion on what’s valuable & what’s not & demanding that the government enforce this through property protection. The only difference is that I acknowledge my bias & am a’least attempting to put logic into my beliefs, while Lewis just accepts whatever the great market god says arbitrarily.

The fact that corporations like Apple benefit to some extent through monopolistic business politics backed by government-defended capital control alludes Lewis, who, rather than acknowledging the complex power conflicts & cooperations ‘tween numerous economic powers, whips up some simplistic fairy-tale “government bad, rich people good” yarn. Probably ’cause they share the same simplistic white-&-black morality as conservatives—what they defend on an appeal-to-consequences discomfort with moral ambiguity that truly masks their inability to understand moral complexity.

He also assumes that the options are either government spending & private investment, even though it’s just as much possible for both the government & businesses to spend li’l, causing less products to be bought, causing business to have low expectations o’ success from lack o’ demand, causing businesses to invest less, & so on in a vicious cycle we call a “depression.” Government intervention isn’t necessary for this to happen.

Just ’cause nobody likes governments, that doesn’t mean you can just blame them for everything & give competing power structures carte blanc without evidence & expect praise for your “genius.” That’s as if I said Hitler caused climate change & called anyone who disagreed with me Nazi-lovers.

So, no, Keynesians don’t assume government & private spending are the same; if they did, they wouldn’t support the former so much. Ironically, it’s the argument that they are the same—based on Say’s Law—that is oft used to argue that government spending has no effect on depressions. ‘Gain, Lewis reveals his ignorance o’ basic economic castes by mixing up Keynesianism & neoclassicalism. Much as Christian fundamentalists conflate Muslims, Mormons, Satanists, & Christians who celebrate Halloween, Lewis conflates anyone who doesn’t dry-hump Human Action as a part o’ the Keynes-Marx conspiracy so that it fits better with the narrative that already exists in his head o’ the brave Austrian-school rebels fighting gainst the vile Economics Borg.

As a result, the first quarter was initially reported with a minus 1% economic growth, then revised to minus 2.9%. One idea floating around is that the Commerce Department’s revision reflected a decision to make the first quarter look worse in order to move healthcare spending to the second quarter and thus make it look better. If so, why would the second quarter have been deemed more important? Because it is leading up to the fall elections. The second quarter is currently reported at 4.2%.

Sharp readers may also notice Lewis’s use o’ weasel words—an “idea floating” round—to add an unsubstantiated accusation o’ the government tampering with info. It’s 1 thing to be arbitrarily biased & illogical; it’s ‘nother to be so much so that one would fail a high-school logic course.

The destruction of common sense economics by Keynesianism is a major reason for what has happened to the American middle class and poor.

When one evokes “common sense,” one should almost always translate it as “mindless obeisance to tradition.” In this case, the “common sense” is that Keynesianism caused the depression by… ¿hiding it purportedly? ¿But how did it happen in the 1st place?

But our governing elites and special interests do not just love Keynesianism for its own sake.

“Special interests” should always be translated as “those other people I don’t like.” It’s quite clear from this article that Lewis & the Mises Economics Blog have special interests themselves, & thus should be included in that class, other than that they’d deny it ’cause… they say so. ¡So there!

They especially love the opportunity for crony capitalism that it affords.

& “crony capitalism” can always be translated as just “capitalism,” since every economic system in the world has & always will fit the special interests o’ those who control it. That’s what happens in a reality controlled by humans & not imaginary disembodied hands. I’m particularly bewildered by how people who support an economic system defined by selfishness could complain ’bout what is obviously inevitably inherent: people selfishly using whatever tools they can—including government force—to get what supports their “special interests.” That’s what “special interests” are: selfish interests—& they’re the core to capitalist competition: doing whatever one can to get one’s interests fulfilled.

Keynes himself was not financially corrupt, and would have been appalled to see the corruption he unleashed.

Citation needed.

Nor did our present problems arrive in 2007-08. They can be dated at least to the beginning of bubbles and busts during the Clinton administration and arguably even further back.

It’s not “arguably”: ¿has Lewis never heard o’ the Black Friday stock market crash o’ 1987?

Hilariously, he notes that the “economic growth cut the rate of poverty in half between the end of World War Two and 1964,” & argues that that “proves” redistributive policies hinder poverty ’cause that’s when the term “war on poverty” became popular. Not only does the graph the study he cites show poverty continuing to fall after the “war on poverty” began, stopping round when stagflation hit & rising through the era o’ the rise o’ neoliberalism & Reaganomics—with 1 noticeable dip round the end o’ Clinton’s presidency—he claims that this proves that “growth” is the true factor to ending poverty, which is meaningless by itself. I’ve never heard anyone say otherwise; the main argument is o’er how much growth can be realistically accomplished & how best to do so. Lewis certainly hasn’t provided any proof that his religion—¡join now & get 40% off all membership cards!—will create growth, though I’m sure he can easily whip up a nonfalsifiable argument to argue so on the fly.

More importantly, he ignores that during the 40s, 50s, & 60s, Keynesianism was the reigning economic philosophy, while laissez-faire was considered a fringe view. This was the era when a Republican president, Eisenhower, said, “Every gun that is made… signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed.”

There are those among the top one and top ten percent of households who are working on this problem every day. They help the middle class and poor by working hard, saving, making wise investments, and hiring, or even by not investing or hiring until conditions are right.

& here we have ‘nother regurgitation o’ the benign capitalist aesop: worship the rich, & we’ll all win. Forgive me if I prefer Republicans who admit they think poor people are gross o’er smiling ditzes like Lewis.

¿Want to know the best part? According to data by Picketty—whose data is clearly tampered with, ’cause he’s part o’ the Keynes-Marx Borg—in the US, private capital was decreasing during the postwar boom, only to start increasing right round when poverty increased (public capital was almost reverse, rising after 1950 & falling round 1970). So it seems the best way to improve the economy is the opposite o’ what Lewis claimed. Big shock considering his tight argument.

I must confess, though: I do feel relieved that there are those out there valiantly not spending money. ¡Think o’ what a crisis I’d be in if rich people hired people when the conditions aren’t right! ¡That’ll totally make demand—money being spent—rise in this depression defined by a lack o’ demand!

It seems that Austrian-schoolers are the ones who don’t know what “depression” means. Then ‘gain, the # o’ numbskulls blathering ’bout the need to create jobs shows that most Americans don’t; it’s just when an economy’s “bad,” a situation without any concrete detail, & thus usable by any crazy ideology to be filled in with their own unique view o’ how the world works.

There are many others who make it steadily worse by feeding off a corrupt and swollen government and wasting trillions of borrowed of manufactured dollars.

Many o’ them are funding Against Crony Capitalism, no doubt.

I also love that “manufactured dollars” bit. As opposed to the dollars that grow from the ground. You’d think Austrian-schoolers would notice the obvious contradiction ‘tween a subjective theory o’ value & an objectivist theory o’ money, which is merely a symbol for value; but then, I’ve gotten plenty o’ evidence that consistency isn’t a priority for the Austrian school.

---

Footnotes:

1 Don’t make fun o’ me ’cause o’ my late publication (apparently I started this article on the very month Lewis wrote his): this shit’s still as relevant as it’ll e’er be; it’ll still be as relevant as it’ll e’er be in 2100, just as ’twas just as relevant in the 1930s.

We’ve had a lot o’ fun reading the scriptures from the churches o’ Mises, so I thought it’d be fun if we took a break & looked @ the other main laissez-faire libertarian denomination, the churches o’ the US founding fathers.

Today we’re reading Think Tank #4296, 10th Amendment Center’s, article, “Communists and Founding Fathers Opposite on Democracy,” wherein they call for the “less informed [sic] masses” to be “protected” from their sinful selves by their benign, brilliant, rich republican leaders. I don’t know ‘bout you, but that sounds awfully libertarian to me!

Tragically, the 10th Amendment Center ne’er learned ‘bout such logical fallacies as “Appeal to Authority” or “Ad-Hominem,” for this article is based entirely on both. Essentially, bearded commies once said nice things ‘bout democracy & a bunch o’ the founding fathers denigrated it, so we should hate democracy, ‘cause the founding fathers died for our sins. The founding fathers also supported slavery & participated in the most successful genocide e’er,—& America’s own Bible, the Constitution, originally defined black people as merely 3/5th human¹—so presumably we must believe these, too. Furthermo’, Karl Marx wrote a whole article supporting freedom o’ speech, so clearly freedom o’ speech is dangerous, too–‘cept, wait, the founding fathers also supported it, so that means… bzzt… scrackle… We’re sorry but this paragraph has crashed. Would you like to send us an error report so we can see just how inferior your hardware is & laugh @ you ‘hind your back? Too bad.

Not all o’ the founding fathers were so critical o’ democracy, either: Thomas Jefferson, for instance, claimed that “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests” & that “[t]he last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.”

Their history is also shaky. For instance, while “democracy”—control by the male, native minority (paragraph 2)—may have led to tyranny in Athens, ‘twas actually good ol’ republicanism that led to tyranny in Rome, as known by anyone who has e’er read a history book e’er—that’s kind o’ why they call it the “Fall o’ the Roman Republic,” stupid-ass². & despite their claim that “[t]he historical record is clear” that the millisecond the 47% o’ Americans who don’t pay income taxes—which includes many o’ the richest corporations in the US, I might add—rises to 50%, the US will collapse into lootin’ & scootin’, I fail to see any evidence. I’m also not sure how taxes being too low relates to communism, but I can certainly agree with them on the need to make mo’ Americans pay taxes. Somehow some o’ the most democratic (& economically left-wing) countries in the world are also the happiest—but then, maybe Nordics & Swiss just truly love lootin’ & scootin’. This is shocking: you’d expect ancient-history to be a prime prognostic for the 21st century.

They also, shockingly, are ignorant o’ Marxism, for if they weren’t they’d know that when Marxists praised “democracy,” they usually meant, er, republicanism. See, Marxists are infamous ‘mong anarchists & “libertarian socialists” for supporting representative systems, such as Marx’s support o’ the “bourgeois-democratic” (read: republican) Revolution o’ 1848 in France³. I’m bewildered by their fact that they read these quotes without wondering for a second if any o’ them knew the true definition, since they’re surrounded by Americans both liberal & conservative who get the definitions wrong–as they themselves indicate.

& there’s no evidence that there was e’er any true democracy in any Leninist countries, prior, during, or after any o’ the Leninist revolutions. All o’ them were republics–closer to republics than the founding fathers’ versions, if anyone actually reads Plato’s The Republic–& had either monarchist or republican governments beforehand. For instance, before the Soviet Union was the Menshevik-controlled (Orthodox Marxists) parliament, & before that was plain-ol’ monarchy. Direct democracy ne’er figured anytime.

Indeed, that they would criticize Leninism as being overtly populist is ludicrous & shows their utter ignorance o’ history. Anyone with the slightest understanding o’ Leninist history would know that Leninists were, ‘bove all, “intellectualists”: self-described meritocrats who wanted power in their hands ’cause they were rational, unlike the vulgar traditionalists in monarchy. Where does that sound familiar? Why, it’s the very republican sentiment that many o’ the founding fathers–particularly Federalists–supported! As Jefferson–who was a bit o’ an exception–said: the world is generally divided into those who support political equality & those who support so-called intellectually superior elites.

Or is their definition o’ “republicanism” obedience to the American Constituion. This would be an absurd definition, ‘course, since it’s purely American & thus incompatible by nature with other countries. Its basis on American history is literally the only thing that holds it together as a specific identity different from other constituions.

The fact is, the 10th Amendment Center’s probably just a bunch o’ brainwashed jingoists: like many Americans, they were taught that they’re largely arbitrary rules based on historical chance (as all dominant ideologies are) are somehow special based on some lazily-cobbled logic & regurgitate this teaching as if they’re onto some high-level knowledge. They’re not. Everyone fucking knows ’bout the founding fathers; most just don’t care ’cause they’re ancient slaveholders, for god’s sake.

The good news for the 10th Amendment Center is that their readers are probably “less informed masses” themselves, & thus won’t notice how idiotic this article is. We can only hope for their sake that nobody with a smidgen o’ intelligence or historical knowledge accidentally stumbles ‘pon it & ruins the whole soufflé.

Footnotes:

• [1] Predictably, there’s plenty o’ hypocritical white-washing o’ this point by devout Americanists, who defend it as just an innocent instance o’ realpolitik that must be examined in context. This doesn’t stop them from claiming the rest o’ the Constitution as a universal law, however. Moreover, one shouldn’t fool oneself into thinking that other countries can get ‘way with this. Only American leaders & history can be humanized or looked @ in context; other countries & cultures—the Soviet Union, for instance—are just instances o’ hand-rubbing villains.
• [2] Sorry for my Hollywood Tourette’s acting up ‘gain.
• [3] Ha, ha, ha: was that Wikipedia article written by a Marxist, by the way? Probably ’cause they’re the only ones who gave a shit ’bout the Revolutions o’ 1848.

Through a web stroll that is now a haze to me—save its origins: an email promising me a job where I can “Mess Around on FaceBook And Twitter!” while making over 700$ a week—I stumbled ‘pon generic-brand Lifehacker known only as Lifehack, whose name only brings me images o’ those clunky pirated games like Super Donkey Kong 99.

Speaking o’ which: to fit the mood, I suggest you listen to this lovely song on-loop throughout the whole article (sorry I couldn’t find an extended version).

The specific article I ran into is called “10 Reasons Why Some People Will Never Succeed,” which sounds terribly original. Good thing somebody finally handled this rare topic.

‘Course, none o’ these reasons are “Bourgeoisie Conspiracies,”¹ so we already know these are wrong. That doesn’t mean we can’t point & snicker with consummate seriousness.

& it starts creatively, too—by quoting someone else:

In O.G Mandino’s The greatest salesman in the world, a very important fact was made which said that:

Stop, stop… Sorry, I just need to savor this diction—like stale “Fruit Circles,” which shouldn’t be mistaken for “Fruit Loops,” no, they’re totally different.

Tragically, nobody told Lifehack‘s editors that facts aren’t made by saying them & that said facts can’t talk themselves. The sad thing is, this could’ve been improved by making it simpler: just say, “In The greatest salesman in the world, O.G [I’m not sure if that’s a typo or not] Mandino said:”

Anyway, the “fact” is nothing but folksy wisdom without an ounce o’ evidence. Apparently all 1,000 “wise men”—I hadn’t realized that was still an occupation—agree that failure is the same: not succeeding @ what one wants. Wow, that is deep: turns out they all agree that “failure” is its own definition. Next you’ll tell me 2 = 2.

Turns out, this quote has no relevance to the rest o’ the article. The writer tosses it to the side & then introduces the list o’ things “people do to fail on purpose.” I can only imagine all o’ the scoundrels sitting in their dark caves, rubbing their hands roughly & cackling as they conspire to fail just to spite Lifehack. These fiends must be stopped!

The 1st reason is not valuing time, which apparently includes going round helping everyone in various situations. This ‘splains why that dumbass George Bailey’s bank failed. Should’ve put mo’ effort into jumping off that bridge, Bailey, ‘stead o’ getting distracted by that “angel” you keep seeing.

‘Course, some people might consider going round helping people in a variety o’ situations to be a fine goal to accomplish itself. They’re wrong & they should feel bad ’bout themselves.

Lifehack was nice ‘nough to give us this gorgeous animated GIF o’ some woman twirling a pencil in her fingers with a glazed look on her face. Her school assignment must be reading this article. As wacky as this bandwidth-wasting GIF is, it adds nothing to the content, & probably shouldn’t have been included. Whoever took the time to add this GIF clearly wasn’t taking this article’s advice.

The 2nd reason is, get this, that they don’t do things that help them accomplish their goals. This leaves me curious as to what the later reasons could be, since this is clearly the prime reason; I’m quite sure that not doing things that lead to a goal being accomplished is itself the definition o’ not accomplishing said goals.

Lifehack ruins this by spewing nonsense below: people who don’t value their goals won’t accomplish them. Then they’re not goals. Goals that one doesn’t value aren’t a stubborn problem; they’re Zen riddles. Nobody has them ’cause in order for someone to have them, they must’ve divided by 0 & blown up the world with a logic bomb.

Thankfully, Lifehack follows this with actually useful advice:

Writing down in a journal what your gaols [sic] are and implementing strategies which can get you there will help you identify things that are not on par with where you are going [emphasis mine].

I agree wholeheartedly: inspire yourself with fear by listing all o’ the nearby jails you’ll end up in when you’re forced to rob convenience stores to keep fed. It’s ’bout time somebody on the internet got it.

This reason’s picture is just bewildering: some asshole yells @ some woman with 90s hair reclining in a movie theater & the latter tells the former ’bout her “horizontal running.” Isn’t most running horizontal? Is that s’posed to be the point? “Ha, ha: look @ this idiot who thinks running but not doing it up hills is great. Successful people always run up hills.”

Mmm, mmm… You can’t imagine the taste in my mouth when I see the next reason: “They never step up to the plate.” Probably ’cause they’re not playing baseball, asshole.

O, come the fuck on! Look @ this next quote:

“People seem to think that success in one area can compensate for failure in other areas, but can it really? True effectiveness requires balance” – Stephen Covey

That’s the exact opposite o’ what you were saying before! You were just saying that balance is bad! That’s spreading yourself thin! Now you’re quoting this dickweed saying not spreading yourself is evil without giving a rationale. Why can’t I consider success in 1 area my goal?

Also, Lifehack’s editor is terrible. You don’t put quotation marks in the blockquote; the block itself indicates that it’s a quote. Haven’t you people ever read a manual o’ style? Next you’ll be telling me you don’t spend nights curled up with the Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus—which is ’bout 7 by 4 by 3 inches & weights a’least 5 lbs., so it must be made for huge pockets.

The article continues with the same reactionary victim-blaming cliché I’ve read 3 times already: “[L]ife has this universal law of giving you what you put in.” Huh, must’ve missed that breakthrough. Must’ve been sleeping in my Physics class when that topic came up. Silly I might think that there’s no evidence for this—that there is, just from a cursory search, some evidence gainst this claim by authentic scientists. But if Lifehack’s work is any indication, successful people don’t use scientific evidence or that ilk; they just spew ideological assertions like Bible verses.

The next reason is the same nonsense that one’s abilities are simply a manifestation o’ their dreams—which is the equivalent o’ saying that magic exists. Magic doesn’t exist & people who stay stupid shit like this are no smarter than people who still believe in the humors system or witches. We should treat Lifehack just as seriously.

Ha, ha! The next reason has a quote that isn’t even relevant, & seems to belie the general tone o’ this article:

“If you can’t make it good, at least make it look good” – Bill Gates

Well, that ‘splains Windows.

These are the people who will find reasons and logic as to why they can’t and why they shouldn’t.

& they should be butchered! God damn it, if I tell you to build me a flying car, you’d better believe you can. I don’t care if you’re 5 years ol’.

Also, if they “find” logic, then that implies that they’re successful in logically ‘splaining their ‘scuse… & thus it’s valid. See, the very definition o’ “valid” is that it’s logical, as opposed to illogical. I think Lifehack‘s actually arguing that their ideology is ‘bove logic itself. That’s awfully precious o’ them.

They sometimes mistake this abhorrent tendency for “just being realistic”.

I love how Lifehack creates an intentional nonfalsifiable argument here: e’en if reality says something negative, ignore it in favor o’ my arbitrary religion o’ happiness.

They lack imagination and always find ways to justify why something shouldn’t be but they never really try.

“They’re strawmen, basically.”

The best remedy for this is to stop your mind when it’s about to start making the excuses and re-ignite the engine that has started it all.

What does that e’en mean? You just said that they lack imagination, so they’d clearly ne’er ignited it, anyway. & why would you want to stop it just to start it ‘gain? What’s “it all” s’posed to refer to? I’m guessing the vile doubts—which makes me ask, ‘gain, why you’d want to “re-ignite” them… God damn it, Lifehack, you make Jack Chick look like the next Aristotle.

Ha, ha, ha. I think that animated GIF o’ the guy jerking round with flickering & the words, “Writing is hard” is a representation o’ Lifehack themselves.

6. They lack class

“They weren’t born into the regency family.”

Unsuccessful people usually tend to have no social IQ.

“People with psychological problems are losers.” No shit. Next thing you’ll tell me that people without arms won’t do too well, either. Good job rubbing it in, asshole.

They say things like “well at least I’m being honest” or “this is how I am, deal with it”.

Um, no: those are assholes. Look, just ’cause assholes go round calling themselves autistic whenever they’re dicks doesn’t mean you’re s’posed to truly believe they’re autistic, stupid-ass.

(By the way, I have Hollywood Tourette’s Syndrome, so you can’t be mad @ me for calling you a stupid-ass.)

Actually, I have to agree with her on my bewilderment on why anyone would think such a defense would work. Most people don’t give a shit ’bout others, so they’d just respond, “Well, I don’t like who you are, so fuck off.”

Nobody likes a big mouth, a show off, a humble boaster, or people who don’t know how to just say thank you when given a compliment.

“Yeah, editor whom I’ll never compliment for putting these nice GIFs in ever ‘gain…”

It has been said…

Nope! I don’t listen to advice given by thin air. Go back & put a name ‘hind that “said” & maybe I’ll listen.

7. They are procrastinators

The funny thing about this one is that they are usually self-proclaimed procrastinators. They see no shame in it.

Sometimes we agree; though this may just be coincidence: I’m always gainst people not feeling shame for things. Shame on you for not feeling shame.

This goes back to them never understanding the value of time.

Thank you for pointing out that you recycled this idea. A less scrupulous writer would’ve been wary ‘nough not to do that.

They are okay with living a life that keeps up with yesterday.

I agree with your criticism here: how can they be OK with something that doesn’t even make sense?

They live life as though they just have another one in the bank.

‘Nother what? Slow down; I can’t keep up with all this skip-skippin’ lingo, fat pajama cat.

Let’s just see how round one goes and if all else fails we press next or rewind or pause.

(Laughs.) What the fuck is this? Who are you talking to?

Understanding that you start dying the moment you are born and wisdom to realize that every day is a gift and you owe it to yourself to do everything you can do in those twenty four hours because nothing’s ever promised today tomorrow.

I think they just gave up @ this point & wrote whatever came to their head. Considering how li’l this Milks & Boon 2.0 probably paid them, I can’t truly blame them.

Unsuccessful people tend to ponder and leave footprints in the sands of time.

“Quit dirtying up my sands o’ time, you bums!”

The worst thing you can do is ponder.

“You don’t see me thinking ‘fore I write you gotta jump the hoop & dodge the giant eat the fish & make a 4-pointer.”

Stop dreaming about what will be, dreams in themselves are not bad but get up, show up and DO something.

“For god’s sake, anything must be better than sitting round reading these articles.”

9. They can’t face adversity

“All sunshine and no rain makes a dessert [sic]” – Arabian Proverb

“& I’m diabetic, so wash ‘way all those simple sugars, please.”

There was a shepherd boy, he was not a warrior and he was small in size. He looked at a giant and said “I will strike you down and cut off your head” and that is exactly what he did.

See, Lifehack was paying so li’l attention that they accidentally pasted some microfiction into the article. It’s probably the best part o’ this article, too: “[A]nd that is exactly what he did” is right up there with “& then Gatsby died.”

The thing with challenges is, they’re only as big as we make them seem and as strong as our weakness will allow.

“You think curing yourself o’ Huntington’s is impossible; but that’s only ’cause you haven’t imagined that you can… Probably ’cause your brain has already wasted ‘way.”

Unsuccessful people have not understood this and they give up all too quickly because things got uncomfortable, things got a little bit rough, they want roses without the thorns, babies without labour and a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow without bearing the storm.

The true moral here is that you’ll always be a loser if you set your win condition to something that’s literally impossible. I agree that that’s, indeed, stupid.

Also, I’m glad to see the Labor Theory o’ Value applied to childbirth. It can only happen when 2 share the means o’ production, after all—I’ll be here all night (so you all must suffer, ha, ha!).

I fell asleep for the last reason. Sorry, I just don’t care anymo’.

1 o’ the related articles, by the way, is titled, “13 Ways Successful People Deal With Toxic People.” 1 obvious contribution would be, “stay ‘way from Lifehacker or Lifehack.”

Footnotes:

• [1] That is, the punk rock band. Regular ol’ bourgeoisie conspiracies have been doing wonders for people’s success, ‘course, else nobody would be doing them, duh.

“Why (Some) Psychopaths Make Great CEOs”

Actually, the article itself is a mess o’ backward & forward sputtering that doesn’t seem to have any point. 1 o’ the reasons I utterly abhor Forbes, the same as why I hate the New York Times, is that though they love to brag ’bout how brilliant they are, they’re actually strikingly imbecilic¹–‘cept the New York Times a’least doesn’t make me question if they’re literate (well, save Routhat). It’s the kind o’ thing that almost makes me feel sorry for market fundamentalists. What happened? Did the vile commies infect all o’ your water supplies with lead?

They admit that “great CEOs” can oft be sociopaths, & some Marxist e’en snuck in, “Then you realize that because of this dysfunctional capitalistic society we live in [having a boner for firing people & wondering what human flesh tastes like²] were positives,” which was fun; but then they try to pour water all o’er it in the hope o’ diluting the sour taste such a statement makes. For instance, when you think ’bout it, all o’ those people who rag on capitalists for loving to fuck with people like cats to a rat it’s ’bout to kill, they kinda don’t have empathy for people who love screwing with people, so they’re kinda sociopaths in a way themselves. Also, I was intrigued by this brand o’ people who apparently believe the world to be run by “blood-drinking, baby-sacrificing lizards.” I always viewed the world as run by, well, sociopaths; but then, maybe I’m just an outlier. I’m sure Ronson’s example is accurate & reasonable & not @ all a ludicrous strawman.

The reason for the positive relation ‘tween capitalist & sociopathy has been known forever: its hard to treat someone else as a subordinate when you think o’ them as one thinks o’ oneself–the definition o’ empathy. It’s the same reason this same connection exists ‘mong government officials³–or anyone in power. After all, capitalists are simply government officials in denial: they control people through property just as governments do. E’en their main defense–”If you don’t like my rules, go somewhere else”–can be just as fairly made by governments. Indeed, any hierarchical social organization presumes that some people are less than others; why else would some deserve less power than others?

In the past people acknowledged this: they called it “Social Darwinism,” e’en though ’twas actually Herbert Spencer who hocked it up. It’s only later that this imaginary hippie-commie “Let’s Put Dildos in Each Other’s Bum™” version o’ capitalism has seemed to infect people’s minds–@ the loss o’ aggregate brain cells.

Adendum

I think the ruby has to be a quote by the guy they interviewed as a ‘scuse to peddle his incoherent pop-psychology:

…the average anxiety-ridden business failure like me — although the fact that my book just made the Times best sellers list makes it difficult to call myself that…

It’s my favorite kind o’ modesty–the David Brooks kind: talk ’bout how modest one is while jerking oneself off. Safety procedures always mandate that one should wear protective covering while in the presence o’ such writing to protect oneself gainst splashed jism.

Note that Forbes doesn’t italicize the Times, which means they either despise those gross liberals so much or are, sniff, low-class in their style–or they can’t figure out how to make italics on this here hip-fangled WordPress thing.

Footnotes

• [1] I realize they could all be liars; but this still requires them to be willing to trade their dignity for the few nickels these cheap papers probably threw them. Most people a’least have some pride in the words that will be attached to their names.
• [2] He could’ve just done what I always do & suck on his hand. This shows that there’s clearly a greater problem than capitalists being sociopaths: they’re also stupid. ‘Nother missed opportunity for the so-called opportunists.
• [3] I tried to actually look up a study like a valid info source, but all I found was a bunch o’ laissez-faire filler & became depressed @ the existence o’ such an immense mass o’ density. We all know the government’s full o’ sociopaths, anyway, c’mon.

Sorry for my lack o’ updates—as well as all o’ the poetry in crippled Spanish. The bourgeoisie have tampered with my computer so that it becomes overheated with the passion o’ the upcoming sexy revolutions, so I can’t use it as much till I get that fixed.

But I have to discuss a few quality crimes o’ writing I’ve seen recently—recently being, for my slow work, last month:

I.

1st, this will be the last time I discuss Noah Smith’s fine work, but I feel like this synthesizes my commentary on his & Mankiw’s work. Smith recently wrote ’nother article jerking off economics, this time making up some faux-nerdy term to show how valiantly economics has avoided being taken up by the vile left & right¹. In this case he focuses on our friends, the Austrian-schoolers, ’cause they’re not clever ’nough to hide their biases.

What Smith fails to realize is that that’s simply ’cause nobody wants economics: both the left & the right build populist support by bashing economics, which everyone can agree has failed either by being too left, too right, centrist—whatever ideology one most despises. The point is, we all know economists suck ’cause they’ve done nothing but fail for the past few decades. The only people who defend economists are economists themselves—since they still need an ’scuse for all that phat loot.

Typically, throughout this rant he defends economics purely on the basis that it is purportedly “left-wing”—whatever vapid meaning he grants that empty term. & yet, @ the same time, he argues that mainstream economics has already co-opted Austrian-school ideology. So, ’gain, Smith shows that he doesn’t e’en read his own work or is deliberately trying to mess with his readers’ minds, since none o’ his shit makes sense, yo. Mo’ than likely, he is attempting to do that double-sided self-praise that pundits always do wherein they praise themselves for being successful in the mainstream while also pitying themselves for not being completely successful. You may recognize it as the same rhetoric Forbes used when they tried to show that capitalism was both triumphant & nonexistent, ’cause everything’s socialist now. It’s a universal technique, as it’s important to make one’s disciples feel urgent ’nough to act gainst a powerful threat while not discouraging them.

The truth is that, as the study that Smith misinterprets shows, economists are biased in favor o’ centrism, ’cause that’s the least controversial, & thus the 1 that’s most likely to make them appear smart to the most people, since everyone only thinks those who already agree with them are smart. If economists are starting to turn leftward, it’s only ’cause that’s what the media’s already turning toward. Notably, Smith can’t ’splain why economists are now turning leftward, other than that it’s what the hip people do, since that seems to be what Smith considers to be most important. For instance, his criticism for Post-Keynesians in his li’l bestiary² is purely based on their not agreeing with him, without ’splaining why they—or anyone—should.

But the problem with economists like Smith has nothing to do with them being “mainstream” or “left-wing” or “right-wing”; their problem is something probably far mo’ heartbreaking to pseudonerds like Smith: that they’re just plain dumb. We can see this by the childish rhetorical games that Smith—as well as e’en mo’ respected economists, like Mankiw—use that wouldn’t e’en pass a freshman logic class.

I also love his parting sentence, which shows the kind o’ mental cancer economists must harbor:

Econ’s relatively strong resistance to political sci-jacking is not inconsistent with its recent leftward turn.

See, there’s a huge difference ’tween an “objective science” twisting coincidentally with the media’s tide o’ political views & the vulgar public media twisting economics toward their views—namely that economists still have their privileged & paid status in the former.

II.

Speaking o’ dumb, let’s take ’nother gander @ 1 o’ the many churches o’ America’s other mindless theology, vapid positivity, & read an article from Careerealism. In this case we have ’nother #’d list for tips on how to defeat one’s fears o’ failure. Who wants to bet none o’ the tips are useful & are, in fact, meaninglessly abstract &/or logically impossible?

We can see that this article’s writer has perfected the craft o’ terrible writing by her logical blunders right @ the 1st paragraph (after a photo representing the trite metaphor o’ a boxer—’cause nobody on the internet has a speck o’ creativity anymo’):

Everyone fears failure, especially as adults. Think about it: As a kid, you made mistakes and you had some failures. So, naturally, as an adult, you don’t want to experience those negative feelings associated with failing again.

Wait: so adults ’specially fear failure ’cause… they hated failure when they were kids? Then logically, kids fear failure just as much, if not mo’. Granted, I would agree that adults would logically fear failure mo’, since they usually don’t have nearly as strong a safety net as kids; but mentioning that would be authentic realism, so, ’course, nary a word is typed on that issue.

The 2nd paragraph uses the website’s own CEO as a source. By this point I think calling capitalism “prostitutionalism” would be just as accurate.

Clearly these go from best to worst, ’cause the 1st is a hoot:

Get a piece of paper and list everything you’re afraid of in your life and career. Are you afraid of failing, having people laugh at you, or having people judge you? No matter what it is you’re afraid of, write it down, and get it out there.

Here’s the fun part: Once you’ve written down all of those fears, crumple up that piece of paper and throw it away!

1st tip: act like a 4-year-ol’. Yes, that’ll show all those villainous fears!

I don’t know if I should be disturbed if this advice involves violence, e’en gainst inanimate objects, or glad that it advises fearful Americans to commit violence gainst inanimate objects, ’stead o’ just lower-class people, as is their custom.

Actually, if the advice were, “Shoot that sonoabitch crumpled paper! Show ’em whose boss!” that’d be hilariously badass. It’d be like that skit with Elmer Fudd shooting the baseball. You missed an ample opportunity as always, Careerealism.

The 2nd tip is either redundant or illogical; I can’t tell ’cause Careerealism’s writers use vague diction like “own,” ’cause they’re shitty writers. If it means, “admit you have fears,” then it’s redundant, ’cause the only reason someone would be reading this article—’less they’re like me & enjoy visiting the Menckenian zoo—is ’cause they’ve already admitted that they have fears. If that’s not what it means, then I have no idea what it’s s’posed to mean—& I have a sense that its writer doesn’t, either.

The 3rd advice is also vague, as well as filled with obnoxious emphasis using all-caps. “Do something!” has always been the rallying cry o’ the vapid middle-class who want to feel wise without putting in any effort—middle-class people being utterly unaccustomed to putting effort into anything.

OK, the 4th tip is literally, “Control What You Can Control.” Now we’re breaking into Poe’s Law. You don’t need to tell Americans to control as much as they can—those power-hungry narcissists want to control everything they possibly can. Better advice would be to tell Americans to stop trying to control things for once—well, ’cept that they wouldn’t listen, ’cause it wouldn’t be in their interests.

Footnotes: