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

Internet clickbait promotes mental tooth decay[.]

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

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

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

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

Sounds right to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They have standards almost as low as Vanity Fair.

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

Interesting. Here, let me try:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O, sorry, we have 1 mo’:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It ends with the best:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( Note: this post involves some… quite silly thought paths. This is not ’cause I actually take them seriously, but ’cause when you’re showing how illogical certain arguments are, you have to temporarily take them seriously to reveal the contradictory dead ends to which they must lead. )

That’s right, Time: I can make up my own cheesy buzzwords like “identity politics”, “dialectic”, & “Single Responsibility Principle”.

But unlike those phrases, mine has a simple, clear definition & distinction: an “integral class” is 1 one is stuck in beyond their control, class being any abstract social idea used to compare people in terms o’ how we treat them. Obviously people debate o’er what makes the list & what doesn’t, but I think any reasonable person would include race & gender. I could make a case for economic status, sexual-orientation, &, to a weaker extent, transgenderism, but that’s beyond the scope o’ this post, & there are surely people who’ve made much better arguments online, anyway.

This concept o’ “class” is important ’cause it gets to the heart o’ this post’s main ethical issue: the logic & illogic o’ discrimination. How “objective” they are is unimportant; all that matters is how people are affected in real society. It’s inherently subjective.

This also should stem questions o’ how race & gender are guaranteed “integral classes” when one can technically change their gender & race through transgenderism & transracialism. I hope that you have the realistic awareness to already know that assuming a woman or black person could improve the social stigma attached to those classes through the much mo’ socially acceptable method o’ transism is utterly absurd.

Also, e’en for people who support the choice o’ either transism, the idea that every woman or nonwhite should go through this complicated, hard task to solve the immensely weak arguments gainst those classes is absurd.

Meanwhile, nothing could be mo’ socially-embraced than a racist changing their treatment by no longer espousing racist beliefs, which doesn’t involve any complicated biological engineering @ all.

This is a common li’l troll argument trotted round by people who prefer sticking it to pretend moral authorities to being reasonable: “Yeah, ¡well people who are gainst racism are bigoted gainst racists!” But thanks to the concept o’ “integral class”, we can see precisely why it’s absurd: race isn’t chosen, racism is¹.

This leads to, what I said earlier, is the heart o’ this post. A common misconception is that discrimination in general is bad. This is ironic, as there’s a similar word, the adjective “discriminant”, which has positive connotations — it describes someone with good taste. That is something I’d proudly use to describe myself.

Thanks to the concept o’ “integral classes”, we can narrow our moral down to the true issue: it’s merely discrimination gainst people for being in classes that they didn’t choose to be a part o’ that’s the issue. Discriminating gainst people for making conscious choices that harm society is not only acceptable, it’s necessary for a functional society.

Choice is o’ choice importance: by definition, choice is the only way a person can truly say that they did something, & thus should be the only target for morality, since the goal o’ morality is to regulate what that person does, not what random chances o’ nature do.

This leads to the central hypocrisy o’ integral-class discrimination. I’ve ne’er seen a racist or sexist argue that nonwhites or women chose to be their classes, & yet they argue that they should be punished for what they didn’t choose. A racist throws out a contextless statistic ’bout black crime to imply a weak conclusion. That racist would probably argue that they need to ’cause in their fantasies the black copters will come round & gag them if they explicitly say anything racist, despite everyone already knowing that what they’re implying is racist anyway, maybe it an incompetent form o’ deceit. But the true goal is probably to skip o’er the major logic leaps needed to make it to that conclusion. Ignoring the fact that “crimes” are actually defined by “crimes punished by the legal system” ( which demonstrates mo’ their lower social status than their proclivity for crime ), racists lead themselves into a mutually-inconsistent proposition: they’re clearly trying to imply that crime is integral to race; but if they do so, then they can’t truly say that those black people committed the crime, but that their race forced them to, & therefore it’d be illogical to punish them for what is, purportedly, hard-coded into DNA.

White supremacists might turn round & argue that it’s just as unfair to punish them for the s’posed criminality o’ other races, but this leads to the other side o’ the hypocrisy — & an e’en juicier irony. As the word “white supremacy” alludes, the idea that nonwhites are “inferior” presumes a superiority o’ the other side. The same applies to choice. If criminality is s’posedly hard-coded into nonwhite DNA, then we must assume that a lack o’ criminality is hard-coded into white DNA — which is to say that they had no choice in the matter. Thus, 1 could turn that question on its head: ¿why should whites be rewarded for s’posedly not committing crimes ( ’specially when they still do quite a lot, anyway ) when they didn’t have to do anything but be born with certain skin? They didn’t do shit. Indeed, if anything it should mean that whites who do commit crimes should be punished mo’, since they had to have a deeper level o’ evil to o’ercome their s’posed racial proclivity for being lawful ( if we take seriously the childish idea that crime is caused by “evil”, & not psychology & environment ).

Thus we see the great irony o’ “white pride”: it’s pride for something one didn’t do. It’s pride for lazily inheriting what one could ne’er hope to get with their own individual efforts. This probably ’splains why intelligent, self-respecting whites find white supremacy so repugnant. I don’t know ’bout you, but I’d much rather take credit for what I did as an individual than what my DNA did for me.

Some might argue that black pride should fall into the same issue; but the fact is, black pride is a completely different idea. Nobody would take seriously the idea that black people are superior to whites — the only people allowed to hold utterly idiotic beliefs & still be taken seriously by society are those who historically had the most power. Black pride is, ironically, somewhat deprecating toward race — or rather, cynically conscious o’ the importance race still holds in society. Black pride isn’t someone gloating ’cause they were born with black skin, as if they’re dumb ’nough to think society would treat them better for it, but pride in one’s individual accomplishments despite their skin color.

’Gain, I can only hope you’re realistically aware ’nough to know that, duh, obviously white people still hold a hefty monopoly on historical achievements & don’t need to prove anything for the white race. That’s why there’s no big celebration for the 1st white president — ’cause ’twas the 1st president, period. But 1st black president was important ’cause he was, s’posedly, an individual so capable ( capable in terms o’ “election-winning”, which means that Obama was as good @ serving the rich while pretending to care ’bout the mass public as white people ) that he was able to succeed despite the barriers to his race.

That said, it is very much true that, in a racially-equal Utopia, black pride wouldn’t exist ’cause it wouldn’t need to exist. Ironic then that the greatest critics are only delaying the possibility o’ what is already a hard-to-achieve outcome for the much-mo’ practical solutions o’ wasting money, space, & energy jailing nonwhites; violently attacking & killing them ( ’cause nothing mollifies people like violence, ’specially people like, say, Middle Easterners, for whom being a target o’ violence is so rare & something the most fanatical o’ which flinch ’way from so much that the fanatics have no way to continue their dangerous actions ); or the best solution for our “racial realists”, trying to build walls round oneself & pretend that the race complexity goes ’way, “la-la-la, I can’t hear you”. But we must remember how serious these realists are.

It seems absurd that in the 21st century there are still people who believe they deserve perks & pride for blood-lines affiliations they took no initiation to develop themselves, much as it’s absurd that there are still people who think they deserve perks & pride for being born in a plot o’ land that happens to reside in the abstract border o’ an imaginary concept as a “nation”, much as, quite frankly, it’s absurd that people still think people deserve perks & pride for being born with money or other capital — including the perk o’ being able to get mo’ money from the money they already have.

But then, we can call this “Cultural Marxism”, or some other arbitrary buzzword, & being called that is much worse than being called a brain-dead idiot. Personally, if I had to choose ’tween the 2, — which I absolutely don’t, despite the idiots who think asserting it without evidence magically makes it fact — I’d still pick the former. Quite frankly, e’en being linked to mass-murderers ( also known as an ad-hominem attack ) like Lenin, Stalin, or Mao in an intellectual debate is better than being connected with someone like Hairpiece, — who is merely a pathetic tyrant wannabe who loves to throw round the scary rhetoric o’ a totalitarian to fulfill his fetishes, but is too incompetent to make it reality — since they a’least had intelligence — & as it turns out, intelligence is what’s actually important in intellectual issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media rag Hollywood Reporter ought to learn that if they’re going to puke out political propaganda, they should pick people with actual political accumen to deliver it — not 2 professionals in “shouting incoherently into their microphone”.

They rightfully make fun o’ some nobody celebrity for making a threatening photo o’ Hairpiece with his head decapitation, & then rightfully make fun o’ her narcissistic moaning ’bout what a victim she is for doing so. But then they stupidly turn it into an attack on “political correctness”, or whatever, e’en though she’s the 1 accusing her opponents o’ being “politically correct”. Indeed, she’s doing what right-wing clods do all the time: someone rightfully attacks her for saying something hateful & stupid, & she claims that they’re violating her “freedom o’ speech” much in the same way that calling people racist is a “violation o’ freedom o’ speech”.

After a small snippet o’ fantasy history ( duh, ¿what’s the “Alien & Sedition Act”? ¿What kind o’ low standards did the schools that these ol’ conservatives go to that none o’ these idiots know basic American history? ) they cite a study that shows that the minority o’ Millennials believe racist speech should be illegal & the majority say that “hate speech” — presumably actual threats, since that’s the only way one could differentiate it from merely racist speech — should be illegal. This is as it has always been, just as how slander & shouting “¡Fire!” in a theater is illegal. This is as opposed to people back in the 60s who thought ’twas OK for the government to violently suppress political protests — O, wait, many o’ them still do.

They then turn this incoherent rant into an advertisement for some movie that is an incoherent rant gainst colleges & their “safe spaces” & their “triggers” & their hip-hops. This always bewildered me. ¿How is not being allowed to say things @ a college the same as not being able to say things @ all? I’m not allowed to say all kinds o’ things @ all kinds o’ places, & am not e’en allowed to be on many other premises — ¡including colleges! Hell, only a tiny few people are admitted into colleges; that’s far mo’ discriminatory than the few admitted into colleges but s’posedly silenced. This is ‘specially the case since most examples are famous people who probably aren’t e’en smart ‘nough to graduate a college being protested @ colleges ( ‘course the right to protest speakers isn’t a kind o’ speech that needs to be defended, ’cause anti-PC rhetoric is always Orwellian ).

[ Since I’m lazy, just imagine I included that xkcd comic where the stick figure gives the author’s opinion on free speech for 6 panels, like everyone else &mdash ¡Psyche! ¡It’s the 1 with the vagina, ‘stead! ]

The fact that these 2 are trying to argue that the mere prospect o’ threatening speech ( which they invented — as they themselves said, nobody said anything ’bout suppressing speech, so what relevance this has to their shallow ad can only be that they truly want people to buy their garbage ) that is directly threatening the life o’ the President is modern society going to far is evidence that they’re either brain dead or liars. ¿You truly expect me to believe the FBI would tolerate such a public figure pulling that back in the 60s, 70s, or 80s?

If anything, it shows that freedom o’ speech is healthier now than it’s e’er been. Sure, you can get banned off Twitter or banned from giving speeches @ a college, just as how you could always get kicked off newspapers for the same for centuries; but there’s nothing stopping them from starting their own websites or colleges… Well, ‘cept capitalism — but I’m going to presume these 2 aren’t exactly jumping to “smash capitalism”, or whatever.

We already know America’s doomed ’cause its media is filled with “left-wing” idiots who think drawing pictures o’ someone decapitated & crying ’bout people rightfully calling her stupid for doing so is intelligent discussion & “right-wing” idiots who don’t e’en know basic American history, law, or anything beyond mindless curt sentences.

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

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

Sounds right to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*twatpalm*

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

Single White women are, presumably…

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

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

…for those of them…

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

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

Stop plagiarizing shitty Irish poetry & get serious now.

…actively trawling the sexual market for cad and cavalier…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America the Shitlib Feminist Shrike…

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

…has effectively neutered White men…

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

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

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

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

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

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

…they will wish…

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

…to see tribal battles play out…

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

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

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

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

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

A massive civilizational shit test, if you will.

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

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

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

…especially while in their pulchritudinous primes.

Stop plagiarizing Lovecraft.

Women are more xenophilic than men…

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

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

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

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

I welcome further suggestions from the commentariat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can tell you…

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

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

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

…the nonWhite…

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

But Now the Greatest Hits

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m too badass to be a mere bf.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Honest-to-god Huffington Post article:

To The Racist Guy Who Picked Up My Pencil During Class

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

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

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

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

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

A common criticism gainst economics is that it uses incomprehensible math language to describe itself, as if that’s the true reason a bunch o’ rich academics prefer philosophies that benefit rich academics. ‘Cause we know from the Tea Party Movement that plain ( AKA sloppy ) language ne’er leads to sloppy economics ( i.e. economics I don’t believe in ).

Mo’ wary economists acknowledge that math language isn’t necessary for economics, but has 2 benefits:

• It’s mo’ rigorous than plain language, & thus harder to make invalid statements ( though it’s still possible — not to mention that this does nothing to protect gainst inaccuracy ).

• Economists being, well, economists, can understand it better than your human language with all its gooey emotions.

There’s something to say ’bout the 1st point. Austrian-schoolers famously claim that math language isn’t necessary ( though can’t argue why it’s necessary not to have it ), & then hurt their cause by having a much sloppier logical system¹ with vague language, logical jumps, & outright inaccuracies ( despite Mises’s claim that praxeology only makes abstract logical statements )².

So I’m recommending a different solution: replace math language with programming language. Economists can’t claim the 1st point gainst this solution: the fact that computers can run off programming language is proof that it’s mathematically rigorous. But I’d also argue that it’s much mo’ readable than math language, if done right.

Indeed, unlike math, programmers take the readability o’ code very seriously. This is ’cause o’ a fact ’bout programming that most people probably don’t realize: that it’s aimed @ writing for humans, not computers. This makes sense: programmers rather quickly realized that they can create computer programs — “compilers” or “interpreters”, depending on how it’s used — that can translate text into machine code.

Now, this obviously has limits.³ ‘Cause human languages are vague, plain English can’t be used; but different languages heavily inspired by English can be used, albeit with much stricter grammar & diction rules than human languages.

Keynes.js

I’ll use Keynes’s General Theory as an example, since ’twas what 1st inspired this view. Keynes, like any economist, loves incoherent math formulae. I’ll go through its primary flaw: wording.

Calculus has this odd pattern o’ using single letters, or e’en Greek letters, to represent concepts & values & a letter plus a letter in parentheses afterward to represent functions. This has greater advantages than being incomprehensible to anyone who doesn’t memorize them: they’re also super hard to position & configure on computers. ¿Isn’t smothering characters in some big E with angled ends — called “Sigma E” — much mo’ elegant than boring ol’ “function SumOFunctionOutputsFromInputInterval( first_number, last_number, function )”.⁴

It’d be nonsense to argue that economists can’t use words ’cause they’re too vague, but that they can use just letters & symbols, which are e’en less meaningful. The fact that computers can run logically-consistent programs with words proves that economics can, too, so long as it uses these words as precisely & consistently as programs.

The trick is to set off variable names ( function names should already be easy to distinguish from plain English ), — maybe bold them — define them precisely when 1st using them ( in programming, we call this “initialization” ), & ne’er use them for anything else. Don’t use them in the description text @ all; treat doing so as trying to create ‘nother variable with the same name, which would create a compilation error.⁵

To give an example, let’s take the formula from the beginning o’ Book III o’ General Theory:

C_w = χ(Y_w) or C = W * χ(Y_w)

I want to point out that this formatting in my copy is so bad that I’m not e’en sure if I got this formula accurate. I’m not sure if that asterisk is s’posed to be there or if it’s some obscure math meaning ( using the same symbol for different functions is less common in math than one might expect from such a rigorous science ) or if it’s just a printer smudge. It’s slightly off-center, which is suspicious. Also, Keynes just mashes “I can’t believe it’s not χ” & the parenthetic expression next to it to form multiplication earlier, ¿so why not just mash W & χ together?

Basically, I’m going to want to append this image next to Keynes’s formula:

Yeah, this is called a “coding horror”. If you click that link you may see an article that proves that, though economists should talk like programmers, programmers probably shouldn’t talk ’bout politics, ’cause they might look silly ( yes, I could totally imagine a programmer with no experience in politics winning a local election based purely on his disgust with the current president — as if that’s a rare commodity — & his inability to tell that election system from Stack Overflow )⁶. Anyway, this icon is actually from a book called Code Complete, by some other guy & is used to set out particular awful pieces o’ coding, much as blogs set out particularly awful wording with bold. I’d recommend reading that book, since it talks ’bout the comprehensibility issues I’m talking ’bout in greater depth. I’d recommend Clean Code & Cleaner Code e’en mo’.

Anyway, let’s make this fomula not suck:

Let’s start by noticing that these 2 formulae are probably the same, ‘cept spelled-out in needlessly opaque ways. C_w is “consumption based on `wage units'” Let’s ignore that the “propensity for consumption” is apparently based mainly on lowly wages & just focus on translating. C is just “consumption”, & is = to the same thing, but multiplied by uppercase W. If one reads “The Choice of Units”, which I don’t recommend, one will learn that W is — surprise — “wage units”, which I believe is the average wage money per worker. ( I just know it’s some form o’ “wages” / some # o’ workers. Keynes is terrible @ specifying domains, but common sense tells me he’s talking ’bout a country’s economy. Since none o’ this is backed by any evidence or data, it doesn’t matter anyway. It could apply to the Gusty Glade Galaxy for all we care. ) So… basic math tells us that C_w = C/W. So, C_w must be average consumption per average wage.

Thus we have our 2 functions:

function AverageConsumptionPerAverageWages( χ, Yw )

function TotalConsumption( average_wage, χ, Yw )

Already, things are looking much mo’ coherent.

Thankfully, these 2 functions share the same 2 variables. As it turns out, I realized that these weren’t 2 variables being multipled together, but 1 other function with Y_w as an argument. These are the kind o’ parsing errors you still have to look out for in programming. For instance, in C++, it’s still possible for a compiler to mistake the initialization o’ a variable through parentheses with the initialization o’ a function.

So… ¿I guess C_w & C are variables to functions? Good thing that works perfectly for JavaScript:

var AverageConsumptionPerAverageWage = function( Y_w ) {};

var TotalConsumption = function( average_wage, Y_w ) {};

Let’s just appreciate how much easier it is to understand the word “function” o’er a cheap knock-off version o’ the letter “χ”.

Now we just need to figure out Y_w. I’ve figured it out: it’s “income in terms o’ wage units”, which is a weird way o’ saying “income per wage unit”, which is a weird way o’ saying “income per average wage”.

Thus, now we have:

var AverageConsumptionPerAverageWage = function( income_per_average_wage ) {};

var TotalConsumption = function( average_wage, income_per_average_wage ) {};

Note that average_wage & income_per_average_wage could be described as functions, too:

var AverageWage = function( total_wages, total_number_of_employees) {};

var IncomePerAverageWage = function( total_income, AverageWage ) {};

Now, we still need to define the implementation o’ these functions. We already know AverageWage & can easily discern IncomePerAverageWage through that:

var AverageWage = function( total_wages, total_number_of_employees )
{
    return total_wages / total_number_of_employees;
};

var IncomePerAverageWage = function( total_income, average_wage )
{
    return total_income / average_wage;
};

Thus, we’d call IncomePerAverageWage thus:

var income_per_average_wage = IncomePerAverageWage( total_income, AverageWage( total_wages, total_number_of_employees ) );

In contradiction to my core claim in this article, there’s a difference ‘tween total_income in this function call & in the function definition earlier. In programming, this is known as “scope” ( sort o’ like my namespace point made in a footnote down below ). The total_income in the function definition only exists for the duration o’ that function call & is set to whatever is pushed to it through this call. This call, meanwhile, references a specific variable whose scope we’ll deal with later.

Anyway, we have 2 mo’ functions to define:

var AverageConsumptionPerAverageWage = function( income_per_average_wage )
{
    return income_per_average_wage;
};

‘Course, this 1 is pointlessly redundant ( & a wrong assumption ).

var TotalConsumption = function( average_wage, income_per_average_wage )
{
    return average_wage * income_per_average_wage;
};

Interestingly, we could redefine AverageConsumptionPerAverageWage in a ( slightly ) mo’ meaningful way.

var AverageConsumptionPerAverageWage = function( total_consumption, average_wage )
{
    return total_consumption / average_wage;
};

‘Course, comparing these 2 functions & understanding basic math will allow one to see that total_consumption / average_wage will inevitably = income_per_average_wage — which is, ‘course, the whole point ( mo’ on this later ). That average_consumption isn’t a particularly meaningful value — better median_consumption — is beyond our scope.

Here we can see all the pieces together:

var TotalConsumption = function( average_wage, income_per_average_wage )
{
    return average_wage * income_per_average_wage;
};

var AverageConsumptionPerAverageWage = function( total_consumption, average_wage )
{
    return total_consumption / average_wage;
};

var AverageWage = function( total_wages, total_number_of_employees )
{
    return total_wages / total_number_of_employees;
};

var IncomePerAverageWage = function( total_income, average_wage )
{
    return total_income / average_wage;
};

var total_income = 16770; // In billions. // These 2 must be
var total_wages = 157.5; // In billions. // in the same unit.
var total_number_of_employees; = 124.73    // In millions.

var average_wage = AverageWage( total_wages, total_number_of_employees );
var income_per_average_wage = IncomePerAverageWage( total_income, average_wage );

var total_consumption = TotalConsumption( average_wage, income_per_average_wage );

console.log( total_consumption ); // Prints 16770 to browser debug console.

Mo’ Fun

You’ve probably noticed by reading the comment after the final statement or running this code yourself ( you can make the debug console pop up in most browsers by pressing F12 ) that total_consumption = total_income. While just following the logic o’ the functions & understanding basic math shows this, familiarity with economics & basic pattern-recognition was mo’ an asset.

But with programming languages, we have 1 tool we can use to test this a lot: conditionals.

To simplify, let’s wrap up the code outside o’ functions in the previous program into 1 big function & have it return a value:

var TotalConsumptionFromIncomeWagesAndEmployees = function( total_income, total_wages, total_number_of_employees )
{
    var average_wage = AverageWage( total_wages, total_number_of_employees );
    var income_per_average_wage = IncomePerAverageWage( total_income, average_wage );

    return TotalConsumption( average_wage, income_per_average_wage );
};

This’ll abstract ‘way all these connections so we don’t have to go through them ‘gain.

Let’s add 2 mo’ functions. The 1st is a simple helper function:

var RandomNumber = function()
{
    var MAX = 99999999999999;
    return ( Math.random() * MAX );
};

JavaScript’s built-in random function is odd: it returns a random # ‘tween 0 & 1. This function increases that to 99.9… trillion.

The next function is the main focus o’ this program:

var TestThatConsumptionEqualsIncome = function( iterations )
{
    var total_income;
    var total_wages;
    var total_number_of_employees;
    var total_consumption;
    
    var consistent = true;

    if ( isNaN( iterations ) ) // isNaN: Not a #
    {
        iterations = 999; // Default
    }
    
for ( var i = 0; i < iterations; i++ )
{
    total_income = RandomNumber();
    total_wages = RandomNumber();
    total_number_of_employees = RandomNumber();
    
    total_consumption = TotalConsumptionFromIncomeWagesAndEmployees
    (
        total_income,
        total_wages,
        total_number_of_employees
    );
        
    if ( total_consumption != total_income )
    {
        consistent = false;
    }
}
    if ( consistent )
    {
        console.log( “¡Our math formulae are pure!” );
    }
    else
    {
        console.log( “¡Economics is a failure! ¡Abort!” );
        SmashCapitalism();
    }
};

1 major flaw o’ JavaScript is its lack o’ argument defaults ( values that the argument becomes if nothing is sent to the function in its place ). This is bewildering, since just ’bout every language has them, including the languages that were JavaScript’s main inspiration.

In this case, the need to manually check for a given argument isn’t too bad, since we need to ensure that it’s a #, anyway — which can’t be done automatically without static typing.

Anyway, now we just need 1 statement @ the end:

TestThatConsumptionEqualsIncome();

Run & let’s see the magic:

…

…

Math is a lie.

( Also, Firefox shows a hilarious depth o’ social knowledge with that line, “ReferenceError: SmashCapitalism is not defined”. )

All right, calm down. I tested this program a bit & realized that a’least 1 kind o’ math is a lie: floating-point #s. Try to ne’er use floating-point #s if you can; they can’t seem to understand such obscure, arcane concepts o’ equality. Looking @ the values gotten, total_consumption & total_income vary by .00000000001 or so. But e’en if they didn’t, they could fail equality, ’cause floating-point #s. This is the case wherein JavaScript’s loose typing is a pain — just like how I have to be careful doing math in Python so it doesn’t try to trick me into thinking 8 / 5 = 1. In C++ or Java I wouldn’t have this problem, ’cause they demand you specify the type. Then ‘gain, C++ also automatically converts types without you knowing, so it kind o’ sucks, too.

The problem is, trying to fix this is mo’ complicated than just wrapping Math.round() round every division. In my tests, ’twas strikingly common for these divisions to give 0 values ( which makes sense, since it’ll be common for the values to be close ‘nough that division would give some value below .5 ) & when a # was divided by 0, which every mathematician knows is kosher, it gives “Infinity”. & when that’s multiplied, we get “NaN”. In that case, we’re guaranteed to get an economic disaster, since NaN isn’t equal to anything — e’en itself. Now, this is what I call a well-designed programming language.

Obviously I can’t just do bounds-fixing for 0, since that would change data, which could cause values to go out o’ sync & cause the same capitalism-destroying problem. Also, fixing our “model” by just “fixing” the data is both hilariously wrong & yet hilariously right for an economist.

Thankfully, I have a much mo’ elegant way to move the goalposts — 1 that’s, if I say so myself, much saner: we’ll just change the definition o’ “=”:

var AbsoluteDifference = function( one, two )
{
    return Math.abs( one – two );
};

var CloseNough = function( one, two )
{
    // I said, “¡Hey! ¿Are we doing government work here?”
    return AbsoluteDifference( one, two ) < 1;
};

By the way, if you e’er hope to get a job programming, I highly recommend you fill your functions with silly comments that reference songs & memes & stuff. I can guarantee your boss’ll think you have the utmost professionalism.

Interestingly, the new ES6 standard apparently has some Number.EPSILON variable that is s’posed to be used for comparing floating-points, rather than using a better # system. ‘Cept, that # doesn’t seem to work with my program ( probably ’cause o’ all the divisions that lead to further impurities ).

& now we change change the conditional statement:

if ( !CloseNough( total_income, total_consumption ) )
{
    consistent = false;
}

Let’s see how it works now:

( Holds breath ).

¡Capitalism is saved!

¿Why’d I waste my time on this horse-piss ‘gain?

It’s ironic that Our Grand Lord Keynes has the gall ( & silliness ) to rave ’bout the “the horde of deranged, lying liberal and leftist media” like the conspiracy theorist he is when he himself is conspicuously silent ’bout Hairpiece’s proposal to increase military spending, despite LK praising Hairpiece for being s’posedly anti-militaristic, unlike the vile harpy Clinton, nor any talk o’ Hairpiece dismantling Obamacare & making it harder for poorer people to afford health care, despite his praise for Hairpiece s’posedly once supporting single-payer health care. Indeed, e’en in that article where he talks ’bout the mo’ pressing issue o’ the brown peoples raping our precious white women, he ignores Sweden’s point ’bout Florida being much mo’ violent than Sweden.

Then ‘gain, we could chock all o’ this inconvenient evidence as just being a conspiracy o’ the “lying leftist” media. ¡How much mo’ convenient it is to be sure o’ one’s arbitrary beliefs when one can just unconditionally cut out evidence that doesn’t fit our conclusions just by labeling it “leftist” & calling it “lies,” without any evidence.

Also, a digression, but I’m getting kind o’ annoyed @ the double standard people apply to the lord & savior o’ milquetoast liberals who want to fashion themselves as “rebellious” by tipping their tobacco pipes toward obscure econonobabble that nobody cares ’bout, Steve Keen. Everyone praises him for predicting the 2008 economic collapse, despite everyone who wasn’t in denial being able to, but don’t mention him being consistently wrong ’bout some imagined upcoming collapse. ¿Remember when he said economic collapse was coming in 2016? Well, it didn’t come close, but it’s totally gonna happen, just wait. ( Then ‘gain, considering the clod we have as president now, maybe that’ll be true in the US. ) ¿Isn’t this what people mock crazy Marxists for? They constantly predict that capitalism will collapse, ¡& then 1 day out o’ thousands something disastrous happens! ¡That’s proof that it’s inevitable! It seems that Keen can “win” simply by always predicting trouble & then point @ the rare times he’s right as evidence, conveniently ignoring all the times he’s wrong.

But, see, his are based on made-up assumptions that Keynes made, rather than made-up assumptions that Marx or Friedman, so it’s OK. Ne’er mind the ridiculous assumptions Keynes made. For instance, in General Theory, Keynes bizarrely argues that higher unemployment leads to higher real wages ’cause o’ “the increasing marginal return to a given capital equipment when output is diminished” [ p. 10 ], which is technobabble for “let’s assume that greater efficiency leads to lower prices ’cause o’ simplistic supply-&-demand that doesn’t apply to the real world.

Hilariously, just before this, Keynes writes, “It would be interesting to see the results of a statistical enquiry into the actual relationship between changes in money-wages and changes in real wages.” Yes, ‘twould be interesting to see someone back up their bizarrely counter-intuitive assumptions on actual data. Maybe next century.

Now, see, if Keynes were a “neoclassical”, we would rightfully criticize him for his simplistic assumptions & silly simple math games to prove arbitrary, tautological points. But Keynes is a “genius”, so it’s OK for him to be tautological & apply made-up assumptions.

But a’least Grampa Keen wore his best Hell’s Angels leather jacket for his patreon video. I hear if you donate a’least $50 Australian you get access to a video o’ him holding up “the horns”, as they call it in the down under the sickness, & croon out a wicked rendition o’ “Welcome to the Jungle.”

Also, ¿why still no mention o’ Keen’s best theory: the “Solar Theory o’ Value”?

Out o’ all the superstitious political ideas that still have power, probably the only 1 dumber than laissez-faire is nationalism, ’specially “left-wing” nationalism. Thus it’s with deep misgivings that I see inane laissy libertarianism be surpassed by an e’en dumber ideology. That this ideology’s primary defense is simply to assert that it’s the only thing that’s “practical,” despite no evidence, other than simply arguing that it’s starting to happen now, which is simply appeal to the status-quo, as if we should just blindly accept any patterns that are happening now, as well as making the guilty-by-association argument that anyone who dares to be skeptical o’ a “pro-working-class” ideology that claims to benefit 17% o’ the working-class by screwing o’er the world majority o’ working-class people are just like laissez-faire libertarianism only reveals the intellectual bankruptcy o’ such “nationalist socialism.”

There’s nothing mo’ hypocritical than people who claim to support egalitarianism—so long as it applies to one’s narrow country—but reject international egalitarianism based on arguments logically equivalent to those used by economic elites to defend inequality. There’s nothing mo’ hypocritical than working-class people who criticize the 1% for monopolizing the means o’ production & pushing them out while trying to monopolize the means o’ production for their nation ’way from working-class people o’ other countries. Such people are not trying to make the world mo’ “fair”; they’re simply trying to join in on the corruption themselves by finding an e’en lower class to exploit. It’s not an attack gainst neoliberalism @ all, but simply a further extension o’ its race to the bottom.

There’s a reason ol’ socialists opposed nationalism: “nations” are a concept logically equivalent to private property. Indeed, they are literally private property, held privately by a narrow group based on a convoluted mess o’ inconsistent rationales mostly influenced by tradition. Tripe like “Europe for Europeans,” based on the argument that they are the “rightful” owners, due purely to tradition, is as irrational as the idea that someone is objectively the rightful owner o’ whatever they own, simply ’cause they already have it, without any question o’ the historical complications that led such a distribution to happen. It’s self-perpetuating circular logic, & therefore irrational.

In essence, it is aristocracy. Natural-born citizens o’ a nation are said to deserve their wealth simply ’cause they’re born inheritors, regardless o’ what they themselves have done themselves. Indeed, if anything, it’s mo’ likely that immigrants are deserving than natural-born: to immigrate into the US either requires that the official immigration rules determined one to be competitively skilled gainst the other immigrants trying to come in or that one is skillful @ sneaking past national boundaries, which certainly requires some craftiness. Natural-born Americans could be the laziest, most useless waste o’ oxygen in the world & still be given what immigrants actually have to earn, much as those born rich can be lazy wastes o’ oxygen to earn what those born poor must earn.

Which is, to say, that “natioanlist socialism” is simply capitalism: it’s the use o’ political power to keep property in the hands o’ the few based purely on tradition & the status-quo.

Similarly, the concept o’ “national democracy” is hypocritical. “Democracy ’mong a certain select elite” is typically considered oligarchy when it happens within a nation; ¿why should that be different when treating the world as a whole? Europe & North America (excluding Mexico—though I could include them & the point would still keep) only make up ’bout 17% o’ the population—not quite “the 1%,” but still a considerable minority. To argue that they should determine the power & economic distribution o’ the world—e’en if that’s just to perpetuate arbitrary tradition—is international oligarchy; & anyone who supports this but pretends to support democracy should be laughed right into their inane faces. Thus, logically, the only coherent form o’ “democracy” that could exist would be an international one. Otherwise, we’d have to count tiny oligarchies—that, nonetheless, are democratic within their tiny group—controlling others to be “democratic.”

Economically, nationalism falls under the same problem as “laissez-faire”: before you can leave people to control their own things themselves, you have to determine who has the right to control what, a social issue that could include any sapient human—since any human or combination o’ humans could or could not be a candidate for control. To argue that “Europeans” should decide “Europe’s” economics relies on a nonarbitrary (thus, nontraditional) means o’ determining who counts as “European” & who not & what property belongs within “Europe” & which doesn’t; & anyone who thinks that means that have currently decided that were rational is clearly irrational. E’en “culture,” which is nothing mo’ than a collection o’ traditions, falls under the same—as if some omniscient deity decided that the Latin language should split into Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, & French the way it did.

(To be fair, this applies in the other direction, too: it’s irrational to argue, for instance, that a “Middle-Eastern” man has mo’ right to say what a “Middle-Eastern” woman can or cannot do simply ’cause they reside in the same historically-decided—& largely European-decided, to boot—plot o’ land & ’cause there happen to be some specific traditions historically associated with those lands.)

The rhetoric o’ class conflict used by “nationalist socialists” is also hypocritical, & ironically similar to the narrow economic-only definition Feminists & Friends™ criticized Marxists for, despite “nationalist socialists” usually being anti-Marxist. They, rightfully, treat the conflict caused by economic equality as something that realistically must be dealt with & can’t be ignored, but act as if the immigration issue can just be brushed out o’ the west. They argue that right-wing violence in the west is caused by economic resentment, & thus that further stepping down on poor Westerners will only cause them to become e’en mo’ extreme, but don’t see the connection ’tween economic problems in the Middle East & Islamic Fundamentalism. There’s something arbitrary ’bout humanizing right-wing Westerners with giving them the sympathetic portrayal o’ psychological problems caused by economic hardship, but portraying Islamic Fundamentalists as just brain-dead robots who are hypnotized by the words o’ the Quran. (The blatant hypocrisy o’ these Fundamentalists’ most famous leaders doesn’t make them question this. ¿Remember that supposedly raving hater o’ the west Osama Bin Laden’s love o’ Pepsi? ¿Remember how ridiculously rich he was & how he lived in a huge mansion? Now, I wonder why such a rich person would’ve wanted the poor mass public to focus on religion & being gainst the west & not focusing on other reasons for their poverty… Hmm…)

’Course, pointing out this peculiar inconsistency gets one labeled a “SJW” or “politically correct,” which… doesn’t mean anything. “¡O, no! ¡They have our true name! ¡According to Ursula K. Le Guin, (who knows a lot ’bout ‘political correctness’) that means they can control us!” Furthermo’, arguing that economic issues might influence Islamic Fundamentalism is apparently paramount to arguing that Islam has no affect on Middle Eastern right-wing extremism, which is insane, ’cause… ’cause some people just say it is, that’s why. Either way, both can’t be key influences, or the economic influence can’t just be greater, not the whole, ’cause, duh, nuance doesn’t exist.

From an intellectual point, I’m less disheartened by some o’ the people who fall into this, since there’s always been that ignorant & assholish faction. I’m mo’ embarrassed by the rise o’ hipster “very serious” pundits who fall into this in the name o’ “practicality.” ’Cause nothing’s mo’ practical than electing a 4-times business failure who had to whore himself out as a living cartoon like Paris Hilton¹ to enrich himself & has no political experience @ all. Watching these pundits is like watching someone talk seriously ’bout their imagined acumen while shitting their pants—it’s just comical.

TLDR: 2017 headline: The Western World: O, How the Mighty Have Fallen.

&, yes, I’m ’ware o’ the infamously unsavory word associated with “Nationalist Socialist.” Don’t blame me: they’re the ones who emphasize nationalism & socialism together. Those in a society full o’ people too dumb to learn history are doomed to repeat it.