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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is given 3 reasons:

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

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

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

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

---

Addendum:

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

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

---

Other fine work by Lord Keynes:

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

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

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

Karl Marx’s Night Out on London Town

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

Marx’s Phrenology and Racial Views

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

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

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

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

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

Here Lord Keynes Jerks Off to Christopher Hitchens

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

I especially love Lord Keynes’s acute psychoanalysis skills:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Article is Authentically Delightful to Read

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

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

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

---

Footnotes:

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

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

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

Law: If you support economic democracy, you support economic totalitarianism.

Proof:

Supporting economic democracy means supporting socialism.

Supporting socialism means supporting totalitarianism.

The law is gotten through the transitive property.

In mathematical notation, for the (nonexistent) economists in the audience:

A = B

B = !A

Therefore, A = !A

‘Course, the real-world manifestation o’ this paradox is due to the Law of Orwell: Politicians’ intent may vary from their promises, or in layman’s terms: Politicians are full o’ shit. Those who promise the sweet candy o’ democracy may truly be trapping you into totalitarianism.

It should be pointed out, however, that the Law of Orwell applies just as much to any other ideology. One should only look up Friedman’s support for dictators in Chile & China¹ or Hayek’s defense o’ “liberal” dictatorships for the cousin paradox, the “Authoritarian Libertarians.”

---

[1] Friedman once complained ’bout the left being hypocritical for criticizing his fraternizing with genocidal dictator Pinochet, but not criticizing his fraternizing with totalitarian Marxist governments in China. I won’t make that same mistake: fuck you, Friedman, for rubbing dicks with capitalist totalitarians & fuck you for rubbing dicks with communist totalitarians. The 1 thing you proved yourself to be consistent in was schmoozing with any crony dictator who’ll let you force your petty economic rituals on people (since the mass majority wouldn’t voluntarily swallow his vapid nonsense)—as is typical o’ “libertarians.”

Also, fuck the pathetic bootlickers in that linked article. ¿You know what’s different from Friedman & those other people? They didn’t pump themselves up as “libertarians” & lovers o’ “freedom.” ¿You know what legitimate libertarians do? They don’t give advice to goverments @ all; they tell them to fuck off.

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

1st, the phrase is redundant. All justice is social. Justice is nothing mo’ than comparing how 1 person is treated to ‘nother & seeing that they’re equal. E’en if one believes in meritorious justice rather than equalitarian, one believes that greater rewards are balanced by greater liability in the form o’ greater effort. Balance ‘tween people is an inherent part o’ justice; that’s why justice is represented by scales. A scale by itself has no relation to justice ’cause a person cannot injustice oneself, ’cause people have control o’er themselves; it’s only how people treat others wherein justice becomes an issue.

Anyway, the people who criticize “SJWs” always try to present themselves as cool nihilists who care only ’bout humor, only to get just as bitchy when their own petty issues are stomped on. Thus we see rich ditzes whine ’bout how they shouldn’t have to care ’bout boring oppression gainst minorities, but then ne’er shut the fuck up ’bout the pettier suppression o’ their ability to waste every airspace with their insipid bullshit. Their logic is clear: I shouldn’t have to care ’bout anyone else, but everyone else should care ’bout me. Utter inconsistency. If such so-called nihilists don’t care ’bout injustice, then they must be consistent & accept injustice gainst themselves.

Thus we have the stupidity o’ GamerGate, a movement dedicated to making money whining ’bout some random women making money whining ’bout sexism in gaming, all for their noble fight gainst people who soil media ’bout 1st-world playthings by nobly fighting gainst things. It’s the same “centrist” shlock that infects regular political media: they criticize anything they disagree with as “biased,” since they have no actually rational arguments gainst it, ignoring that to define a certain viewpoint as “biased,” & a different (theirs) as “the middle” is to be biased ’bout what is the “middle.”

Economists do the same: they define heathens who dare to have independent thought on the proper distribution o’ wealth from their invisible hand god as “social justice” folk, as opposed to level-headed economists who then bitch & moan ’bout their imaginary model economies being tampered with or the injustice rich people go through by being “stolen” from (that this definition o’ “theft” & “true ownership” is just as arbitrary, & ultimately backed by government law, is ignored, ‘course, since economists replace authentic analysis with ideological regurgitation). ‘Gain, if economists want to be cool, emotionless scientists, then they have to be accepting o’ all “injustice.” People who sneer @ those who whine ’bout the innumerably corrupt & unjust actions o’ the rich & corporations, but then get in a hissy fit when workers form unions, regulate, or redistribute wealth are simply bumbling hypocrites who should be laughed @ themselves.

‘Course, the greatest paradox is that anyone who rails gainst “social justice warriors,” by railing so fiercely, is already a social justice warrior. The only difference is that they’re just shittier versions. So if I have to choose ‘tween supporting social justice warriors, I’d rather support those who fight for social issues that actually matter rather than petty garbage that has to twist words round to hide the fact that it’s petty garbage. It’s just like “political correctness” or “intellectualist”: it’s a way for people with rationally useless philosophical views to attack rationally useful views not by actually deconstructing them logically, but, ironically, by sarcastically calling them rational. “O, so you’re the ‘warriors’ who put effort into making society fair—i.e. logically consistent. Phhh, why don’t you go back to your college for smart people, smarty sweats.” It’s like the passive-aggressive people who call themselves “conservatives” & say, “O, well I guess I’m dumb then,” whenever “liberals”—people who are bad ’cause they disagree with their views, thus creating a self-fulfilling ideology—are mean ‘nough to point out how illogical—i.e. dumb—their views are. & nothing’s mo’ unjust in this world than people with dumb views having their dumb views called dumb.

& if they do support justice, but just don’t think that feminists, or whatever group they hate, supports is justice, then they shouldn’t use the term “social justice warrior.” So either way, they’re stupid. ¿If they truly think their definition for justice is better, why don’t they ‘splain it ‘stead o’ relying on meaningless epithets as useful as “poopy-head”?

& for the record, I’m not a “Social Justice Warrior”: I’m a Social Justice Black Wizard, ’cause I chose Black Mage (way to be reverse-racist in giving the black mages the badass offensive magic, Square) & totally gave Bahamut his rat tail.

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

Addendum:

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

---

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

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

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

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

But I love the creepy implications o’ her advice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, aren’t you special.

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

…Brad DeLong, one of the most prestigious Keynesians…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

While an authentically equal economy may be perhaps Utopian[1], those from all corners o’ the Quadratic Inanity[2] who usually use this argument to bolster each o’ their own particular form o’ benign capitalism are hypocritical, for capitalism without corruption is not e’en Utopian, but flat-out logically impossible. Hence why it’s ne’er existed, while true equality did sorta maybe for a short time in Spain once, a’least.

It’s so obvious that capitalism @ its core is corrupt that only American’s deep discomfort with questioning the core principles o’ their dominant ideology, regardless o’ truth & logic, could ‘splain the prevalence o’ this mythical meritorious capitalism—or “equal opportunity without equal outcome,” as conservatives call it. & it’s not just the right that hinges on it: liberals like Paul Krugman & Joseph Stiglitz in their books make lofty promises o’ returning to some mythical fair capitalism that they imagine existed in the glorious 50s—well, to whites, a’least—thanks to moderate welfare & regulation. It’s probably true that these—the welfare & regulation, not the white supremacy—do improve society o’er laissez-faire capitalism, if the success o’ Nordic social democracy is an indication; but corruption is not simply a relative circumstance that’s worse than what’s possible, but an absolute circumstance that applies regardless o’ what worse alternatives may exist. In truth, ending political/economic—I only use both words ‘cause o’ westerners’ wrongheaded insistence that they’re different—corruption would require change so radical that it’d probably require outright equality, which I’ve already states is probably Utopian. If that is the, understandable, belief o’ moderate liberals, then they should honestly acknowledge that the true end o’ corruption is impossible, but that their moderate reforms are the best people can hope for. Showing policies’ relative strength compared to other existing policies doesn’t prove those policies’ absolute quality.

What makes capitalism inherently corrupt? The answer’s hid in the name: capital, the creation o’ wealth from wealth, whether investment, interest, $ itself, or through using property to gain an advantage. The definition o’ a corrupt system is that the output affects the input—a’least in a positive way. This is ‘cause it creates a self-perpetuating cycle o’ victory creative further victory. This is why the equal opportunity that conservatives tout is necessary for meritoriousness: in order to be truly competitive, all contestants must start @ the same position. Obviously wealth—money & property—is the prime outcome, the measure o’ success; thus, any instance in which wealth itself creates opportunities for wealth-creation, including the common methods I’ve mentioned earlier, is corrupt. This obviously wouldn’t fit within conservatives’ call for equal opportunity: since opportunities such as investment are obviously influenced by how much wealth one has, then equal opportunity & equal outcome are the same.

What’s funny is that this is e’en mo’ obvious when one looks @ a common metaphor mainstream economists use to describe money’s affect on “the market”: $ votes. Consumers—people with money, & thus some success already—control how the market runs, which controls how money is outputted. Such a system is the equivalent o’ gerrymandering: the rich controlling the criteria that decides who gets to become rich. &, as economists themselves clearly agree, it’s the core o’ market systems.

Footnotes:

[1] Those who argue that Leninist countries like the former Soviet Union & North Korea’s evil were due to excess democracy or equality should merely be pointed & laughed @; their ideology has clearly left them immune to any semblance o’ reality.

[2] Conservatism, laissez-faire libertarianism, centrism, & liberalism—the 4 mainstream ideologies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thankfully, Lifehack follows this with actually useful advice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that ‘splains Windows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“They’re strawmen, basically.”

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

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

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

6. They lack class

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

Unsuccessful people usually tend to have no social IQ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has been said…

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

7. They are procrastinators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The worst thing you can do is ponder.

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

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

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

9. They can’t face adversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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