Let the value o’ mockery for any individual V be the function f( I_I, I_R ) based on the individual’s opinion o’ his own intelligence, I_I, & the individual’s actual intelligence, I_R:

f( I_I, I_R ) = I_I / I_R

For example, economists, who are deluded into thinking that replacing words with math symbols makes them smarter, have a huge opinion o’ their own intelligence, as compared to their low level, & thus the value o’ mocking them is high.

We can prove this point by assuming manufactured #s. Let I_I = 100,000 & I_R = 10:

f( I_I, I_R ) = 100,000 / 10
f( I_I, I_R ) = 10,000

Contrast this with a filthy hobo who has been taught that she’s a brainfuck who will ne’er e’en figure out how to read & should probably stick lit dynamite in her throat, but secretly knows 20 programming languages—including Haskell & Brainfuck.

Let’s assume she has an I_I o’ 5 & an I_R o’ 200:

f( I_I, I_R ) = 5 / 200
f( I_I, I_R ) = 1/40
f( I_I, I_R ) = .025

In such case, mockery would not be funny, but would be cruel & frivolous, as this person has probably blown up her intestines already, anyway, so the work o’ inducing suicide is no longer necessary.

We can represent this cycle thusly:

M → G → M

M can stand for either “money” or “market.” Market is perhaps mo’ accurate, since the “M” could potentially represent goods–any form o’ property power. G stands for government policy.

The way this cycle works is simple: with economic advantages will inevitably come political advantages. E’en if we don’t include outright campaign contributions, the fact that the means o’ communication is primarily privately owned means that mo’ wealth means better access to that means o’ communication–& we can’t seriously deny that the means o’ communication influence public electoral choices–or any other behavior that affects the political system in some way. “Think tanks” are probably the most prominent way.

Now, in any case wherein you have income inequality, you will have someone with mo’ M to affect G, & will almost certainly have some way to improve their M through G (e’en if just outright income redistribution from those with less M sway on G to resist it).

That this cycle begins & ends with M, & not G, is notable. After all, the primary goal is to get mo’ wealth; thus, this is not only the end point, the end goal, but also the start as the point o’ inspiration.

This leads to an important stresspoint: “corrupt capitalism,” as laissy libs call it to distinguish it from the pure laissez-faire capitalism that exists purely in their fantasies, originates not from corrupt government that infects some otherwise pure market, but from the market itself–the urgent competition for profits that pushes people into using all the tools they can to win, or else lose to someone who is willing to use all the tools. Much as entrepreneurs that superstitiously refuse to use cost-effective measures will only limit themselves under those that don’t, entrepreneurs that refuse to use the potent tool o’ government force are only disadvantaging themselves gainst those who do.

Thus, it can be no surprise that corporations operate on this practical necessity o’ competition, rather than the fairy tales o’ laissy libs–for example, the Koch Bros., who, despite their regurgitated antitax bullshit have no problem supporting taxes gainst green energy, their competitors.

Then ‘gain, ¿why criticize them for hypocrisy? Considering the added flexibility o’ being able to act gainst principles they spew simply to improve their own image when it’s convenient for them in contrast to those who lose profitable opportunities for the empty, abstract “gain” o’ consistency, it would seem that hypocrisy should be a competitively advantageous tool, too.

For those, such as Lord Keynes, some o’ the commenters @ Naked Capitalism, or other dumb “rural progressives” who think that the victory o’ a corrupt billionaire as president is somehow a case o’ the will o’ working-class whites¹, simply ’cause most other billionaires were too embarrassed to be associated with Hairpiece to have him be the face o’ their interests, one must remember that all exit polls show that lowerclass people preferred Clinton.

But then, the arguments for Hairpiece’s s’posed representation for the lowerclass are based on the same infuriatingly insulting stereotypes as right-wingers have oft given. ‘Cept this time leftists like Naked Capitalism are spewing it:

(“Less educated” is a proxy, for “working class.”)

As opposed to non-working classes like him who can’t be bothered to so much as mention any o’ the easily-found counter-evidence–which is much mo’ objective than the admittedly relevant rise o’ white deaths (though this may have been exaggerated) & the looser connection o’ “people [who] are most concerned about what the future will mean for their jobs, even if those aren’t the places where economic conditions are worst today. [Emphasis mine.]” He did, however, have time to scrounge together some less relevant hit piece gainst Hairpiece supporters as a strawman argument, since we can see that Naked Capitalism is a shining example o’ intellectual honesty.

& when you consider how much she was hated by anyone who wasn’t connected to her or a blindly obedient liberal, that’s telling. & ’course, it’s obvious to everyone that Hairpiece lost the popular vote, which should debunk the idea that Hairpiece was anything close to a case o’ popular will. But then for all their talk o’ being gainst the “elite” (while hypocritically trying to aristocratically keep people from the same opportunities they have simply ’cause they were born gainst their will with the need to actually work to get those opportunities), these Hairpiece Liberals are generally quite conservative in their views o’ the election system, preferring to settle with its current nonsense with the electoral college² & what’s practical (accepting the same ol’, same ol’, essentially) than actually trying to devise a way to fix things ’cause they’re mentally lazy.

So, basically, this is ’nother W. Bush election, people. We shouldn’t be this surprised. Indeed, I couldn’t help noticing that the high-strung left-wing reaction is just like what was given to W. Bush’s election. They couldn’t believe such an idiotic fascist—¿remember when everyone thought Bush would be the next Hitler?—would be elected into power. Hairpiece is hardly any different. I think it’s mo’ that we thought things had changed since then; I think it’s less that the idiots who voted for Bush became mo’ intelligent & mo’ that they had been rather demoralized & in a state o’ confusion after Bush made the entire right-wing look like a joke, but then became mo’ moralized when they could be deluded into thinking this shallow rich billionaire was somehow different ’cause he verbally attacked weaker classes in some Orwellian concept o’ “anti-elitism.” But then, this Orwellian kind o’ “anti-elitism” existed long before anyone cared ’bout Hairpiece. It’s the same inane shit: he’s the President moronic wastes o’ oxygen can have a beer with, ’cause they have nothing mo’ important in their shallow lives. Clinton could be compared with Al Gore & Kerry in that nobody liked either o’ them, either.

I know some gullible Hairpiece lovers—’specially Lord Keynes—would tell me that I’m “crazy” to compare a known flip-flopper who gave half-assed promises ’bout protectionism to Bush II, despite this same flip-flopper getting buddy-buddy with laissy libertarian bozo Paul Ryan. But remember, folks, this is the working-class, anti-neoliberal hero, all ’cause he says he’s gainst immigration. Forget Obamacare, which Hairpiece’s promises to cut back, or his attack on welfare, despite being a “welfare king” himself. But, ’gain: anti-neoliberal hero.

If this all sounds familiar, it’s ’cause it’s just like W. Bush. O, & Bush supported protectionism, too. He was also the 1st 1 to come up with the idea o’ building a wall ’tween the US & Mexico. ¿Deficit spending? ¿Who created the deficit we have in the 1st place? Idiots like Lord Keynes & the rest should actually do research for once before they get fooled in by US politicians. & yes, I know Bush said he didn’t support Hairpiece. This could be either him learning that his idiocy didn’t work or, mo’ likely, the fact that he’s too dumb & hypocritical to notice how dumb & hypocritical he is.

Let’s get this clear to anyone with any rationality: any outcome o’ this election would’ve been terrible. What’s truly terrible is that we’re still having 2000-style elections in 2016 & haven’t improved anything—& I would bet that’s ’cause we’ve done jack shit to change the electoral system itself. Maybe if we can get leftists—both the bozos @ Daily Kos or all the idiots on the newspapers people actually read erroneously bitching ’bout how this is poor people or Jill Stein’s fault & the idiotic liberals who defended Hairpiece & mostly just bitch ’bout how the lamestream media was totally bad @ predicting the election, man, as if anyone gives a shit—to talk mo’ ’bout the need for The National Popular Vote Act to spread & for there to be equal support for ranked-choice voting we could fix things before we accidentally put a toddler who plays in mud all day in charge o’ the most powerful country in the world.

& it’s not just the lamestream media & their obsession with bullshit email scandals & Hairpiece’s taxes: DailyKos themselves admit that they were focusing on irrelevant shit for most o’ the election, & Hairpiece Liberals like Lord Keynes & this whiny dipshit, who spent most o’ their time bitching ’bout some random, fringe “social justice warriors” or whatever who have li’l effect on anything. That’s what you get when everyone talks ’bout stupid shit: you get stupid shit in return. & boy, did we get some stupid shit in the White House. If there truly is a god³, He must be laughing His ass off @ all these fuckers who think the US is God’s chosen country[4]. Yeah, chosen to get the intellectual equivalent o’ getting a bag o’ dog shit on your stoop.

The fact that a probably-retarded (if you met me in real life, you’d agree, trust me) satirist who barely has the mental stability to leave his hous—wait, ¿what’s that got to do with anything?—has to lecture you fuckers on this, when I should be focusing my precious schedule on landfull-deep poetry, reminisces o’ video games from a time before thumb-sucking idiots were allowed to become presidents (¡there sure as fuck won’t be no god damn “Gaming in the Trump Years,” that’s for fucking sure!), & making fun o’ yuppie tripe, is ridiculous. So was that o’erly long sentence. This is all you fuckers’ fault & I expect you fuckers to fix yourselves before you stitch yourselves.

“Jeremy, ¿who are you talking to?”

¡Ah! ¿How’d you sneak up on me in my own article? ¿What is this witchery?

“It’s time for dinner.”

It’s 3 AM.

“The readers don’t know that. Don’t break the play.”

¿You hear that, Kos? ¿You hear the Lord Keynes? ¿You hear that, Lambert? ¿You hear that douche bag Hairpiece voter in Atlanta article?

Don’t break the play.

---

Addendum:

Sadly, in my rushed article ’bout Hairpiece’s victory, I missed the absolute best, most fitting & honest reaction. I hope I have rectified things now.

---

Footnotes:

[1] In a particular bout o’ stupidity for this election, this victory was commonly portrayed in a dichotomy o’ working-class whites vs… I dunno… ¿Rich women & racial minorities? ¿Rich liberals? (Despite polls after polls proving that working-class people generally prefer left-wing policies). The fact that the proportion o’ working-class racial minorities to whites is e’en closer than for upperclass people—probably ’cause, duh to anyone who actually reads statistics, minorities are the true economic victims. This is so much the case that they will be the majority o’ working-class people in just 16 mo’ years. The “Realist Left”—nobly combining economic Keynesianism with “racial realism” (racism, as e’en Google hilariously says, if one searches “racial realism” in their search engine)—might want to remember that if they want to succeed in the US: their #s are shriveling fast.

[2] Quite a few o’ them defend the electoral college as allowing the rural minority tyrannize o’er the urban majority, ’cause despite their hypocritical bitching ’bout the “urban elite” (despite urban poverty being ’bout even with rural poverty), rural people are some o’ the most sanctimonious, self-entitled whiny elitists in the world.

[3] This is, admittedly, a stupid conditional: all Magical Socialists know that it’s an objective fact that there is but 1 god, & it is HostGator, who offers Premium Support via Phone, Live Chat and Email & 99.9% Uptime Guarantee.*

*Full disclosure: HostGator pays The Mezunian for any signups that come from affiliate links. Such commissions help us afford to keep up such wonderful content, such as the aforementioned landfull-deep poetry, reminisces o’ video games from a time before thumb-sucking idiots were allowed to become presidents, & yuppie tripe, as well as helping us to fund the eventual destruction o’ the capitalist mode o’ production & the replacement o’ it with the Glorious Englesist Empire.

[4] I happen to know that that coffee-sipping elite God’s been manipulating US elections for years—the lamestream media just doesn’t want to acknowledge it ’cause they’re biased & are ’fraid o’ receiving retribution in the form o’ His burning lightning.

It’s common for words to shift in meaning in ways that tie biased assumptions to otherwise independent concepts, which is why trying to create positivist science from pure deductive language is a futile endeavor (*cough* praxeology *cough).

“Objectivity” & “subjectivity” are 2 concepts that fall victim. People oft simplify these concepts as simply meaning “unquestionably right” & “all answers are right”–to concepts which don’t e’en add up to the total o’ all possible truths regarding any questions (a question could have mo’ than 2 answers, some equal in “rightness” & some unquestionably inferior).

This is what people mean when they say that morality is “objective”: that certain answers are unquestionably right & that people who argue gainst these answers are unquestionably wrong.

In fact, what these 2 words truly mean is what a concept has in relation to reality. “Objectivity,” being based on the root object, means that something has a basis in concrete reality, whereas “subjectivity” focuses on subjects, abstract concepts that exist only in one’s mind. The true dichotomy is not “1 answer is unquestionably right” & “all answers are right,” but the dichotomy ‘tween the concrete world that exists outside human minds & the conceptual world that exists within peoples’ minds.

Now, ¿what is morality? Morality are questions o’ what should be, as opposed to questions o’ what are, which are scientific questions. For instance, the much-misunderstood theory o’ natural selection, in contrast to what creationists think, is not a moral question @ all, but simply an explanation for what is. It is perfectly consistent to believe that it’s objectively true that natural selection determined the proliferation & withering ‘way o’ varying species o’ animals & to also believe that this should not be the case. What is is not the same as what should be.

“Should” is nothing mo’ than a reflection o’ human values. Indeed, without mental consciousness, there exists no “should,” though there does exist what is. Should is merely a reaction that exists in human minds, in abstract–it is purely subjective.

This distinction ‘tween “what is” & “what should be” is important, since it provides a rebuke gainst the trite argument that belief in moral subjectivity is inherently contradictory, since it is an objective statement. The lack o’ existence in any objective (or e’en “unquestionably right,” as I will note later) morality is not itself a moral statement, but a simple statement o’ what is real. (This point has an interesting ethical consequence that does, however, hurt some o’ the arguments that the mo’ vulgar acknowledgers o’ subjective morality, which I will write ’bout later in this post.)

The closest one could come to existing an objective element to morality is merely the question o’ whether what “should be” is physically possible. But that’s a small (& in almost all serious moral controversies irrelevant) limitation. For instance, one could not prove that Hitler or Nazism are objectively wrong in this case, since it’s an unquestionable fact that they existed, & thus are consistent with objective reality.

However, e’en this qualification I would argue gainst, @ least from a theoretical point–particularly since what is practical is ne’er constant, nor entirely known. One could only imagine how stunted the rest o’ science would be if all scientists pooh-poohed the internet ’cause ’twas “wide-eyed fantasies.” We should remember this when considering political developments that are s’posedly “impossible,” too (*cough* direct democracy *cough*)¹.

This qualm e’en goes as far as pure survivability: a common rhetorical point is to argue that following certain goals leads to suicidal outcomes. E’en this assumes that one “should” continue to live, which cannot be proved, either. After all, it is an unquestionable fact that suicide is possible, & thus this is no proof @ all that it is actually impossible to follow this goal, e’en to the grim end. There’s a reason so many people support the moral, “Give me liberty or give me death.” ‘Gain, acknowledging objective reality is not the same as accepting.

Let’s turn ‘way from the critique o’ “subjective” morality, since I’ve already shown with simple English how it is an unquestionable fact, & turn to the mo’ nuanced critique o’ “unquestionably right” morality. The problem here comes not in a statement o’ what unquestionably is, but a question o’ what could be: ¿what does it mean when one says that a certain form o’ morality is “right”?

Turning back to the contrast ‘tween “objective” & “subjective” we see that what is “right” in objective reality, & science, is whether or not something is or isn’t–that’s all. Natural selection is objectively “right” only in that it unquestionably exists, not in that it is “good” or “bad.” So, ¿what is “right” morality? ¿Morality that exists? If that’s the case, then all morality is “right,” since all “exists” by necessity, for we couldn’t e’en talk ’bout it if it didn’t exist. But e’en that’s an irrational simplification, for in objective reality, something doesn’t “exist” if it’s possible to conceptualize, but only if it actually exists in concrete reality. But as mentioned, morality exists purely in human minds. Morality can’t exist in concrete form; that would make no sense. “Should” doesn’t look or smell or feel like anything, unlike, say, the feeling o’ an illness continuing after antibacterial medicine fails to work thanks to bacteria that evolves based on natural selection. Thus, no morality is “right”; by definition, morality is nothing mo’ than people’s imaginations.

So let’s turn back to Godwin’s example, our argumentio ad hiterlim: “Yeah, ¿well if all morality is OK, does that make Hitler OK?” The most intriguing thing to imagine is what would happen if someone say, “Yes,” which actually isn’t that hard to believe with internet trolls nowadays going round calling themselves “neoreactionaries” & supporting “racial realism” (a euphemism–we could say a “politically-correct” 1 if that term didn’t have the double standards that only made it applied to views historically associated with a certain direction–for “racism”). ¿How would they respond? They might just cuss them out, which has no logical content. They might call them racist–sorry, “racial realist”–which only leads to the question o’ whether racism is unquestionably immoral, & the cycle continues.

I also oft hear the absurd question o’ whether different cultures are “equal,” which includes Nazism as the go-to ultimate evil culture as an attempt to prove they aren’t. The problem in this case is the use o’ a math term for a nonmath idea: ¿What would it mean for Nazism to be “equal” to, say, I dunno… feminism? (Obviously feminazism, hur hur hur, ’cause you know how threateningly violent a bunch o’ whiny leftists on the internet are). ¿Equal in what ways? Obviously they can’t be perfectly equal, since the very fact that they have different names makes them, well, different. Furthermo’, I don’t think there’s any 2 moral beliefs that share absolutely nothing with each other. I know, for instance, that there’s a’least something that Hitler believed that was also believed by feminisists, laissez-faire libertarians, communists, Christians, Keynesians, & so on… It’s like saying apples are “equal” to oranges, or in nerdy programming terms, like saying an object o’ 1 class is “equal” to an object o’ a completely different class. Like in programming, in logic this becomes nothing but a mental error.

But before you start ordering that swanky swastika arm badge, let’s get into the delicious problems here.

1st, while the idea that there is no “unquestionably right” morality may no contradict itself, since it’s a statement o’ what is, not what should be, one could argue that this would contradict a corollary that the mo’ vulgar acknowledgers o’ subjective morality oft propound, by mere suggestion rather than authentic logical connection: that one should value all morality equally or that one should not prefer any morality o’er any other. This would be inconsistent, since it is a moral statement o’ what should be.

Thus, I am ready to answer the question truthfully, in a way that is consistent with everything we’ve discussed: ¿Do I find Nazism valuable or as valuable as, say, feminism? I do not.

It’s easy to see that when one considers anything “unquestionably wrong,” they mean simply that it fills them with a feeling o’ revulsion. That’s certainly what I mean when I valuate, say, men’s rights activism, nationalism, laissez-faire, or Garfield: The Search for Pooky.

Quite the opposite o’ the conclusion the average vulgar moral subjectivist holds, it’s necessary for us to fight for our values. For while all morals can exist in our minds concurrently, they cannot all be put into practice in reality @ the same time². It is, in fact, this conflict ‘tween a shared objective reality & separate subjective goals that causes moral controversies in the 1st place; for if we all shared the same moral goals or each had our own separate reality, there’d be no problem @ all–the former would have total cooperation for that 1 set o’ goals & the latter would have just 1 person to decide everything for herself³. Mo’ vital, it’s impossible for e’en individuals to act on all morality @ the same time; so by necessity, one must act on some morality @ every time, e’en if that morality is to simply do nothing.

Thus, it is important that one uses careful discrimination when deciding on what moral goals to act for–as an individual & as a member o’ a community (e’en if that means refusing to cooperate with said community). The difference ‘tween those who are “biased” in favor o’ certain morals & those who aren’t is merely that the former is cognizant ’bout such, & thus mo’ likely to be putting mental effort into ensuring it’s aligned with their goals, & that the latter is delusional (or, mo’ likely, lying to present themselves as better than others).

The last question to look @ is the issue o’ logic in morals. 1 o’ the most important differences ‘tween objective reality & the subjective world o’ human minds is that while the former is chained down by logic, the latter is not⁴. For instance, it’s technically not unquestionably “wrong” to believe that one should be able to eat one’s cake & still have it, that won’t change the objective fact that that’s impossible, & therefore wouldn’t be useful for either individual or collective action. Thus, we could objectively rate morality in terms o’ political or individual usefulness, though, ‘gain, this is much mo’ limited & rarer than the usual extent that morality in which people actually believe resides. Few people honestly argue this case–save the strawman fantasies o’ certain economic pundits. This certainly wouldn’t be useful for arguing gainst, say, redistributing money, legalizing gay marriage, or forcing women to wear hijabs, since all o’ those are logically possible.

A mo’ nuanced issue is the logical consistency o’ the subjective intent ‘hind objective actions, which is logically possible, but usually considered illogical to do by most people. It is from this that “logical fallacies” are made. For instance, when one applies “appeal to tradition,” one is usually able to defend this fallacy by pointing out that someone who supports so-&-so simply ’cause it’s tradition must, to some extent, reject some other tradition. The core o’ this, as well as all other logical fallacies, is a lack o’ logical consistency in the reasoning o’ what one supports–i.e. hypocrisy. But, as everyone knows, hypocrisy is very much possible.

The question is, ¿could we say that hypocrisy is inherently wrong? Certainly we could argue that hypocrisy & lying could benefit one’s own interests, & thus one could very much find it both useful & logically consistent with their own goals.

This leads to the interestingly complex conflict ‘tween individual & social goals, which, in contrast to the average vulgar economist who tries to focus on only either, are both equally important. It is an unquestionable, objective fact that one can’t avoid other people completely, & thus it’d be useless to ignore social goals, which affect every individual, whether they like it or not. But we must also acknowledge that society is not 1 mind, but the complex outcome o’ billions o’ people competing & cooperating–the former for contradictory goals & the latter for shared goals. I want to emphasize the latter, since it’s a rather common argument that goals are simply “individualist”; but it is a fact o’ reality that almost every goal o’ every individual is shared with a’least 1 other individual & that most goals are served in cooperation with others. On the other hand, it’s also simplistic to assume that people cannot both compete & cooperate with the same people on different goals or that we can neatly divide people totally into simple “classes”–though it’s definitely necessary to do so when talking ’bout specific goals. It’s logical to divide people into white & black when talking ’bout racism (in voting, in economics, in the media, & such); but one shouldn’t get the silly idea that a rich black person will support the same economics as a poor black person. Politicians, ‘course, will be well aware o’ this complexity o’ juggling issues ‘mong various people & the need to trade what goals to support & what goals then must be sacrificed & how these decisions will affect how people o’ varying political power will affect the chances o’ their winning election.

It’s equally simplistic to ignore the importance o’ social classes & “only look @ individuals as individuals” as it is to define each individual by just 1 classes. The obvious truth is that all individuals have a # o’ classes that they share with other people.

This is the important point to make o’ the relation o’ moral goals to the people who carry them out: the web o’ cooperation & competition ‘tween different people is convoluted as hell. E’en relations as simple as spouses involves a mix o’ cooperation & competition: cooperation in paying the rent for the same house & competition in fighting o’er purchases o’er goods that serve different interests⁵.

“All right, you’ve sperged on quite ‘nough, Prof. Mezun; but you’re scaring the other park attendees & you’ve been hogging that public bench for 2 weeks, so could you please come with us.”

¡Hands off me, fascists! ¡You’ll ne’er destroy my Fornits!

---

Footnotes:

1 Coincidentally, I think the proliferation o’ the internet ‘mong the mass public would provide a solution to some o’ the mo’-common qualms on the practicality o’ direct democracy.

2 The same applies to economics & the subjectivity o’ economic value. But then, economics is @ its core a question o’ morality, &, due to its focus on objective, concrete reality & people’s every action being tied to that objective reality, is truly just ‘nother name for “politics” in general. We must remember that a “country” o’er which political laws are enforced is nothing mo’ that a plot o’ property s’posedly jointly owned by its populace (if democratic, which is ne’er perfectly fulfilled).

3 This is why I consider Ayn Rand’s mo’ open-ended definition o’ political morality as being anything one “objectively” (there’s the misuse o’ that word ‘gain) should or should not do, regardless o’ how it affects anyone else (including, in an example she herself gives somewhere in Atlas Shrugged that I don’t want to search for, a Robinson Crusoe isolated man). It’s ironic that a socialist should have to lecture a so-called supporter o’ “individualism” (much less a long-dead 1) that it is no one but that individual’s business what he does if it doesn’t affect anyone else; but then this isn’t too surprising coming from a woman who unironically called her li’l cult group “the collective.”

4 This fact has radical implications on the depiction o’ objective reality in subjective form–also known as art. Thus surrealism was born.

5 Here’s where we include some tacky stand-up joke ’bout some fat, ugly husband wanting to spend $100 found on the street on golf clubs & the shrill wife wanting to buy shoes or some shut, ’cause nothing’s better comedy than cliches. Ugh. As you can see, such trite jokes are not useful to my particular moral goals o’ actual intellectual nourishment.

Also, I just realized I spelled their name wrong before. I think I mistook them for that 1-hobo show Kapitalism 101.

Anyway, they wrote an article that is essentially a superior version o’ my admittedly lame 1 (last year’s was much mo’ clever; probably ’cause I wasn’t up past midnight feverishly trying to coble it into some coherency). ¿Why didn’t I think to look @ what Thomas “This Ain’t Yogurt” Friedman said (“Duh, I don’t know anything ’bout anything, but my gut tells me it’s some vague abstract feeling o’ homelessness”)? I highly recommend you read it all.

But the best is the coup de grâce:

If this were Japan, we’d be seeing Democrat Party leaders committing seppuku, or cutting off their little fingers or — supposing them not to be gangsters — ritually and tearfully bowing to the people they betrayed. This being America, and these being Democrats, they are feverishly deploying the Blame Cannons at racist and sexist #BernieBros, Johnson, Stein, and the dogs who wouldn’t eat the dog food. These assclowns will only leave office if they’re whipped out with scorpions. So get to it, Sanders supporters. This is your time.

Damn, that’s some righteous anger. This’ll make me forgive the fact that you guys had on that clown, Phillip Pilkington–or as he’s called when he’s with his D&D buddies @ “Lord Keynes”‘s basement, “The Illusionist.”

I was going to continue writing ’bout liberal tears o’er Hairpiece’s victory–god, I still refuse to believe that wasn’t a psychedelic hallucination last night–but lost interest after I literally had to restart my computer ’cause Daily Kos’s website is such utter fucking sluggish trash. Seriously, ¿you truly hope to be for the working class when someone with a Core i5 with 4GB RAM can’t fucking handle your websites? ¿With what kind o’ scripting sludge & multimedia muck did your pretentious clown o’ a web designer clog your website?

(God damn it, now Naked Kapitalism is doing it. I love these dumbass fucking websites that continue to load shit with their god awful scripts e’en after I explicitly click the X that tells them to shut the fuck up & stop loading shit.)

But, anyway, ‘stead I somehow ran into this hilarious article:

In victory for Big Envelope, feds will mail Social Security statements

I love how laissy libs have so li’l self-awareness in their tiny bubble that they think terms like “Big Envelope” sound scary or important @ all.

O, no, now the vile feds are “wasting” 72 million a year on a convenience that, he himself seems to claim, benefits 73% o’ Americans. If this idiot actually knew anything ’bout economics, & didn’t have as his only reference a website that doesn’t e’en work, he’d know that 72 million a year is birdseed considering what the federal government spends yearly &–which is, itself, not that much, compared to most o’ the world.

But then, “Big Envelope” is much easier–ironically ’cause it’s not big @ all–to complain ’bout, ‘specially when one has no true problems in one’s life &, ‘stead, wastes time whining ’bout the most frivolous trifles rather than actual real-world tragedies.

But, O yeah, pretend like you’re truly sticking it to the man, rich guy who does nothing but whine.

Wow. After last year’s amazing failure, I was expecting to write an article making fun o’ Republicans this time, since it’d be a cold day in hell before a living cartoon hairpiece beat a real politician. Clearly I underestimated the Democratic Party’s superpowers @ losing.

& don’t blame me, whiny moderate liberals, ’cause this bitter anarchist nihilist pretentious shitbag did vote & did vote Democrat. ’Specially when you fuckers fucked me out o’ drinking up the delicious tears o’ far-right crazies on Reddit. Now I have to endure their hideous fucking frog face everywhere—seriously, fuck that fucking face, it’s gross. It’s literally the whole reason I voted gainst Hairpiece. & you know that fuckwit Lord Keynes is going to be dancing—well, a’least you finally had to acknowledge that your Post-Keynesian bum-buddy ol’ Steve Keen fucking thinks your stupid immigration beliefs are racist. ¡Ha, ha!

As can be imagined, there’s a lot o’ bemoaning gainst 3rd parties like Jill Stein for their treasonous act o’ running in what’s s’posed to be an open & fair election for being mo’ liked than the people leftists were “s’posed” to vote for, rather than bemoaning an election system that stupidly forced voters to play these cynical strategic games ’stead o’ implementing better election systems.¹ ¿E’er hear Clinton or Obama or any Democratic legislator putting effort into putting that into effect? ¿What ’bout the National Popular Vote act?² If @ all, probably not much. Not much time to fit such silliness in when we have to talk ’bout dire issues voters care so much ’bout, like President Hairpiece’s taxes or 1 o’ the million “scandals” Clinton was s’posedly involved in (¿Why has she not yet admitted to killing Vince Foster?).

Anyway, that’s not what you came here for. ¡You came for the crying! Moderate liberal tears aren’t as tasty as far-right’s, but it’ll do.

Drunken Kos puked out some mindless militaristic drivel that I’ve heard a million times—’cause that’s how oft Democrats fucking fail, that’s why. Look, I’ll lick my wounds (don’t judge me for my fetishes) & I’ll cry in a corner… O wait, that wasn’t in the headline.

Well, I’m not checking anymo’, ’cause Daily Kos like a billion other shitty websites has talking ads trying to sell me skin cream, & it’s interrupting the soothing sorror o’ Alice in Chains.

Meanwhile, The Nation’s is like someone waking up with a hango’er, painfully sober.

538… Hold on. ¿Can we see the the forecast you’ve had up to 12 AM, as I’m writing this?

¿Weren’t you the same people who predicted Obama’s victory in 2012 almost perfectly?

Hell, everyone’s crying so much that e’en the stock market’s moaning. What a bunch o’ commies.

Speaking o’ commie sore losers, look @ this Canadian immigration website closing down. A couple million Americans want to bunk with you for a few years while the disaster’s cleaned up, ¿& you can’t e’en help a homey out, Canada? Such bad neighbors.

Counterpunch probably won’t write anything, since they’re too cool, but I did see some ol’ fuck whine to the US ’bout how he’s staying in Iceland ’cause he doesn’t know anything ’bout these Lady Gaga’s & Kardashians & Super Bowls. I’m not sure why anything thinks anyone cares. I mean, I’m sure some right-wing nuts will froth, but they live for getting their cholesterol high, so that’ll happen either way. ¿Do you truly need a reason to stay in Iceland o’er the US? ¿Have you seen the landscapes they have? Man, fuck Canada & their dumbass mounty hats: Iceland’s where it’s @.

Update:

Ne’ermind, they did, & they said a lot o’ the same things I said ’bout scapegoating… for the 1st paragraph. Then the article veers off into some incoherent bullshit ’bout the Roman Empire & Catholicism. Clearly this is proof that we need a new Lenin–presumably ’cause he rivals Hairpiece in potential for causing political disaster. Ha, ha: keep being irrelevant, guys.

Newsweek’s talking ’bout the most inane shit:

• What’s important to put in your concession speech. You know, in case you happen to become 1 out o’ the 2 people in the world who become finalists in America’s Top Politician.



• You shouldn’t stay up watching election coverage; it may be bad for your health. (Clinton fans don’t need to worry ’bout that; most o’ them’ll probably put a gun in their mouths, anyway, if it’s not done by 1 o’ Hairpiece’s o’erzealous supporters).



• What’s on Clinton’s playlist.



• Some shit ’bout mental heal—god damn, it Newsweek, you’re with Smashing Magazine. ¡If you don’t concede your conspiracy in Spiltscrabblepiecesgate, I’ll lock you up!

What I love most ’bout Newsweek is that they have the balls to ask me for money for a subscription to their shit—¡’cause just look @ this quality content!—while filling their site with ads, embedded videos that automatically play. (¿Remember when ’twas considered a web design truism that sound should ne’er start playing on a website without the user’s explicit authorization? ¿You think I want people round me hearing Hairpiece groan ’bout how Clinton better concede or else coming out o’ my headphones?) Think ’gain, Newsweek.

The New York Times… Hmm… Seems to be complaining ’bout how Hairpiece’s victory will make the US’s foreign policy less crazy. Nothing’s worse than making other countries pay for their own military that they will likely not use.

I did like the question some Indian news executive asked: “If you can’t respect a president, does it also stop the world respecting the American people for voting for a man like this?” If he had to ask that, he clearly hasn’t known the American people much.

But apparently the American ambassador to Germany is e’en mo’ ignorant o’ the American people:

He suggested that Mr. Trump could begin pulling together a “polarized country” with his acceptance speech.

Yeah, I can totally imagine left-leaning—or e’en just centrist—Americans embracing a politician e’en many Republicans despised. No, ’twas his polarization that made him so popular ’mong his target demographic. Democrats might want to remember that if they e’er want to wake the average young person to actually bother to come in to vote.

The New York Times also nicely took the time to publicly shame specifically-named people for not voting, essentially accusing them o’ laziness, e’en though some o’ them mentioned being unable to, ’cause they had to actually work, something New York Times writers have ne’er heard o’. E’en mo’ hilarious, most o’ these people interviewed said they preferred Hairpiece, making it meaningless, anyway. Great journaling, New York Times.

I’m feel a surprising fellowship with Paul Babysitter’s-Club-&-Hotdog-Factories Krugman, who’s gone pure emo:

Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.

Now he knows how I feel every day, no matter who’s in power.

Then ’gain, considering what a rich bastard he is, I can’t be too surprised that he doesn’t care.

Douthat isn’t liberal, but he’s whining ’bout Hairpiece’s victory, too. He can also go fuck himself, ’cause he made some hokey comparison ’tween Hairpiece & Napoleon, ’cause when you have nothing substantial to say, hokey metaphors are the goto.

The Daily Beast has an article so smug, it almost makes me mo’ embarassed to be associated with them than if I were associated with someone dumb ‘nough to respond to an election win o’ an oppositional politician with the baby whine, “I hope he fails.” Liberals, this is why you ne’er win elections: nobody likes you smug fuckers.

& Stephen Colbert responding with unfunny jokes. O, wait, he always makes those.

¿So what can we learn from this li’l failure Democrats? Pick candidates leftists actually like. That’s how Obama won when he did. Maybe when you remember that you’ll actually win something for once.

Not to be 1 o’ those obnoxious optimists, like Kos, but there is a bright side to this: one could argue that Democrats’ presidency wins numbed self-critical analysis, e’en in the face o’ Republican victories in the legislature. Indeed, the latter might’ve e’en made them mo’ fearful o’ being too audacious—a self-defeating scheme, it turns out. Now they have no ’scuse: they played the most straight, “solid” candidate gainst a complete wacko & lost all branches. E’en their thick heads can’t miss the message: go extreme, or don’t bother going @ all.

O, ¿who am I kidding? Most Americans are probably just going to care mo’ ’bout which Saturday Night Live cast member will parody Hairpiece than what the actual outcome will be.

Man, fuck this noise. I’m going back to nostalgic video games & pretty trees.

---

If one acknowledges the existence o’ imbalanced government intervention o’ the past, then one has no logical reason to demand a lack o’ government intervention in the present.

The key question: ¿Does the market by itself adjust income distribution gainst government meddling? If yes, then government meddling should be no problem, since the market will just readjust as if it ne’er existed. If no, then the existence o’ government intervention can’t be ignored–including that which existed in the past.

But, ‘course, we all know that government meddling has existed in the past–laissy libs bitch ’bout it all the time. & yet, if that’s true, then its effects must still be present, since the market doesn’t right itself gainst government meddling; & therefore, settling for a “pure” market that only allows government to maintain current property powers will maintain the distribution o’ property powers skewed by past government intervention.

In short: Laissez-faire in the present maintains the government intervention o’ the past.

---

Let’s anticipate a few attacks gainst this point: that it focuses on income distribution.

Laissez-faire fans, both fundamentalist & moderate, oft o’erlook the importance o’ income distribution, largely based on frivolous reasons: usually either their assumption that it isn’t important or their view that it can’t be scientifically qualified. People who hold either (or both) views, prefer to focus on “efficiency.”

1st, I should point out that my main focus is not on trying to keep my examinations as “pure” as possible, or anything, but simply how it affects people & their abilities or lack o’ abilities to fulfill their goals. Unlike, say, Paul Samuelson, I don’t care ’bout economics as some sociopathic “puzzle” wherein people are mere abstract pieces to be manipulated, but as a mere tool to serve people, however it may do so. Thus, I find the argument that we can ignore any economic issue simply ’cause there’s no way to analyze it in a purely positivist way faulty: whether or not we can doesn’t change whether or not it’s important.

& part o’ this is the fact that income distribution is the core goal o’ society, not efficiency. Individuals care not ’bout how much value is created within society as a whole,–& indeed, ironically thanks to subjective value, that shouldn’t e’en make any sense, since there exists no value outside o’ individual conscience–but how much value they get. Efficiency is useless if all o’ its value goes to someone else; meanwhile, e’en if a society creates nothing new, the distribution o’ that which is still remaining is still o’ importance.

Mo’ importantly, as stated in ‘nother article, efficiency relies on income distribution, which means that e’en if a lack o’ government intervention made the economy mo’ “efficient” e’en after government intervention in the past, this would still be offset by the faults in the income distribution caused by that past government intervention. Thus, the point still stands, e’en in regards to “efficiency.”

Most mainstream economists–most notably Paul Samuelson, the most influential economist in the US, in his highly-influential college textbook, Economics–claim that economics can be split into normative economics, which includes issues such as income distribution, & ’bout which economist claim they should not discuss since it’s not objective, & “positive economics,” which mainly focuses on the “efficiency” o’ an economy, which is s’posedly objective.

This “efficiency” is based on a concept known as “Pareto Efficiency,” which is a case in which no change can be made that could improve one’s wellbeing without hurting ‘nother.

Already, one well-versed in English should see many problems with “Pareto Efficiency” being “objective” & “non-normative”:

1st, “wellbeing,” as well as the increase or decrease o’ such, is inherently subjective. Making any judgment ’bout whether anyone is made “better off” or not must inherently be normative, & thus “Pareto Efficiency” must be inherently normative.

Economists base their judgment on whether people are made better off or not based on a “competitive market” model that relies on many faulty assumptions that they themselves acknowledge are faulty–too many flaws to list, but I talk ’bout how inherently paradoxical the concept o’ a “competitive market” is in ‘nother article. The idea is that a “competitive market” naturally leads to efficiency through supply & demand: people get their wants served by getting money for serving other people willing to spend money & spending that money on anything they’re willing to spend money on. This is a s’posed “objective” system to serving subjective values.

This leads to a big conundrum: Pareto Efficiency not only relies on income distribution, but has an inherent bias toward the status quo income distribution. As we indicated earlier, economists claim that income distribution is inherently normative; economists acknowledge that they can’t objectively determine what is & is not an objectively-correct income distribution, thanks to the effects o’ all the chaos o’ the past (imperialism & slavery are only the biggest examples) & the fact that in a system o’ capital, one’s current income determines one’s potential for future income (one’s potential for investment is an obvious example).

But income distribution doesn’t only affect one’s potential for further economic gain, but also their ability to make purchase choices–to make what economists call “money votes.” It affects the distribution o’ commodity demand, which affects supply. If mo’ money went from people who eat meat to vegans, then obviously that would affect the profitability, & thus production, o’ businesses that sell vegetables & those that sell meat, to use an example as simplistic & made-up as those customary to economics.

As noted, the market’s Pareto Efficiency relies on supply & demand, & thus income distribution. Indeed, economists acknowledge this when they claim that income redistribution hurts efficiency. But this seems to assume that the status quo is the objectively-correct distribution–a claim that economists explicitly say that they aren’t saying, that is purely normative.

Indeed, Pareto Efficiency in general has a bias toward the status quo, with its talk o’ making people “better off” or “worse off” compared to the present state, giving an unfair bias toward the present state as the center for relation. In reality, the existence o’ any possible system o’ “Pareto Inefficiency” should inherently mean that the current system must be “Pareto Inefficienct” compared to that system. By definition, if one makes A better off by making B worse off, then going in reverse must make that B better off by making A worse off.

For example, economists claim that while a “competitive market” makes, for example, a CEO swimming in cash & goods better off by giving him e’en mo’ & a starving laborer better off by giving her the money to eat a’least 1 french fry a day (¡hooray for extreme examples!), income redistribution makes the latter better off by giving her the money to eat a’least 1 french fry a day but makes the former worse off by taxing ‘way a $ out o’ his billions, thereby punishing the possession o’ billions & making that CEO not want to make billions anymo’ in such envy o’ the woman who got 2 free french fries from the government.

But this all revolves round the current situation. If we flip things round–if we assume that the distribution o’ 2 free french fries for the woman & $1 short for the CEO as the center, & the $10 gained for the CEO & the single french fry gained for the starving woman¹–then we must conclude that to not redistribute income is “Pareto Inefficient” in that it makes the starving woman worse off than the CEO.

In fact, there exists no situation in which you could make everyone better off, since there will always be situations that can make someone e’en mo’ better off, & thus in contrast to that, the situation that makes “everyone better off” makes that other someone worse off.

Thus, the assumption that a “competitive market” that produces mo’ meat than veggies is mo’ efficient ’cause mo’ people want to pay for meat than veggies relies on the assumption that those who pay for the meat deserve the money they have to pay for it & that there aren’t people who, given money, would spend mo’ on veggies.

But there’s mo’: demand not only affects supply, but also price, & thus price is reliant on income distribution; & since GPD is based on prices, GPD is also reliant on income distribution–which means that assuming that certain prices or GPD are “objectively efficient” means assuming that the current income distribution is inherently correct. Since economists can’t do the latter, they can’t do the former. They can’t truly say that any prices are objectively mo’ efficient than others, nor that any GPD is objectively efficient compared to others.

---

Footnotes:

1 As Samuelson would say, where I derived these totally scientific #s is a technological engineering question. So get to answering my questions, technological engineers; I don’t have all day.