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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commenter ReaganAnd30YearsOfWrong gave the perfect response:

Krugman thinks economists still have credibility. Seriously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few points to note:

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

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

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

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

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

Reddit Page

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

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

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

Facebook Page

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

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

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

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

Imaginary Wikipedia Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Citation needed.]

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

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

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

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

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

I also love this hypocrisy:

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

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

E’en better:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s what I thought.

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

Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also loved this line o’ LK’s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then we get this nonsense:

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

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

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

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

Democratic

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

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

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

Culture

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

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

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

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

Identity Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken B:

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

The Illusionist:

And we didn’t say it was, Kenny boy.

Ken B:

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

The Illusionist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Problem with Keynesianism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

Digression: “How I Left Common Sense”

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Grundrisse 05¹:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O, but lets get into the review itself:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

& then we have this:

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

One that isn’t a lazy bum.

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

(Laughs). So deep.

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

The key point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site content must be free of bias or moneyed interests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, what’s this horseshit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

It’s the cream in your cup,

it’s the feather in your cap,

it’s the dice in your hands,

it’s the flab in your pan,

it’s the color o’ leaves,

it’s the holes in cartoon cheese,

it’s your knees’ bees,

it’s crease in your jeans,

it’s the tingling in your knickers,

it’s the warning before every trigger,

it’s the warming that hides in every winter,

it’s the only coffee that tastes sweetly bitter,

it’s the sickle in every sinner,

it’s the shadow under every winner,

it’s the boughs that only get thinner,

it’s a real-ass, motherfucker cool dude,

It’s the shit,

it’s the trick,

it’s, it’s, it’s,

chip, chip, chip.

When we finally use X-Zone on the vanished HAND,

that’s when the sexiness starts.

In Soviet Earth, you can’t elude the truth;

the truth only always eludes you.

¿How do you like them grapes?

There are no “them grapes”;

there are only “those grapes.”

Learn to write, asshole.

I mean it.

There is only 1 god,

& that god is love;

if ( !love_your_fellow_humans_even_if_they_smell_like_they_ rolled_round_in_pig_shit_for_hours_ )

{¹

you_love_god_ = false;

}

Remember that, you shitty pile o’ shit &/or secrets.

“Right, right. Hold it there.

‘Scuse me, sir, but I must stop this section.”

¿What?

¿Who are you?

¿How did you sneak into my book, you sneaker?

“I’m the Entertainment Police & I’m ‘fraid this section’s gotten far too silly. You’re under arrest for violation o’ Walrus’s Law stipulating that all silliness must be balanced evenly with seriousness so that they both fall into equilibrium. Come with me, please.”

Wait, but I’m not don—

“Come ‘long, sir.”

Bu—

Footnotes:

[1] All true Magical Socialists use Allman style. All heathens who use K&R or the 1 True Brace Style must be eliminated.