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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

Addendum:

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

---

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

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

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

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

But I love the creepy implications o’ her advice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, aren’t you special.

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

…Brad DeLong, one of the most prestigious Keynesians…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thankfully, Lifehack follows this with actually useful advice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that ‘splains Windows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“They’re strawmen, basically.”

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

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

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

6. They lack class

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

Unsuccessful people usually tend to have no social IQ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has been said…

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

7. They are procrastinators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The worst thing you can do is ponder.

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

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

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

9. They can’t face adversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

“Why (Some) Psychopaths Make Great CEOs”

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

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

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

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

Adendum

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

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

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

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

I.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

In our dystopian present, where North-Korea-style economics is the norm & newspapers like Forbes have to be distributed underground to keep from being crushed by the eye o’ the Socialist Sauron that is our current World Government, a business shill @ Forbes whose last name is 1 letter ’way from “salesman” pleads, “Wherefore art thou true capitalists?”

It’s clear that either Salsman must be 1 o’ those enviable breed that can say the equivalent o’ “The sky is green” with a straight face or he is even mo’ delusional than I am. Where do I start with this MRA for the rich?

Despite many leftists admitting that capitalism was the victor after the fall o’ the Berlin Wall—which is unsurprising, since leftists love to talk ’bout what victims they are—they forget that our present economy is similar to those s’posedly-fallen socialist economies.

So… Then capitalism wasn’t the victor, after all. Socialism was. He basically says, “The fall o’ the Berlin Wall proved that capitalist countries are the best ’cause the capitalist countries were the 1s that didn’t collapse, even though they’re not truly capitalist, but socialist.” But if, in your own words, capitalism doesn’t truly exist anywhere—they’re all infected with that evil socialism—then capitalism is truly the failure.

What are you trying to argue? That we should feel triumph ’cause we crushed those socialists but feel bad ’cause we’re being crushed by those socialists? You have to pick 1. You can’t be both the winner & the loser @ the same time, dumbshit.

To be fair, there is some truth to capitalist countries being like “socialist”; but this development is hardly new, has been a part o’ capitalism since it’s inception, & is what I would mo’ accurately call “economics in general” than “socialism.” You’re right, Salsman: government intervention in a system run by the government is crazy! Next thing you know, we’ll have police use violent force gainst what the government calls “theft” in opposition to their own totalitarian specification o’ who owns what.

What fantasy eon do people imagine when they talk ’bout this “free” capitalism that must be contrasted with the vile corrupt, government-infested version that has always existed? Colonial times, when General Washington used military force to crush agricultural workers who rose up gainst “rule by a faraway elite, cronyism and corruption at influential levels of government, and regressive tax policy”? Was it during the Gilded Age o’ so-called self-made capitalists, when the country-spanning railroads were funded primarily by government hand-outs? Or was it the “Golden Age o’ Capitalism”—truly the Golden Age o’ Keynesian Welfare Capitalism.

No. Salsman provides no history, no evidence, no nothing for his diatribe. He does what all political narcissists do: he throws his fists down & calls everything he hates “fascist”—or “socialist,” which in this context is the same: “evil”—& demands everyone do everything exactly as he wants now or else! He wants to feel great ’cause he’s a winner & feel great ’cause he’s a poor li’l victim who should get so much sympathy. He & his capitalist buddies are spoiled brats who need to get over themselves.

I want to emphasize that “MRAs for the rich” point, ’cause he truly depicts rich people as the true victims o’ the US, including some weepy article by The Economist, which argues that rich people apparently have to hide for fear that the majority o’ Marxists that Americans surely are will shove a pitchfork into their bellies. There are many lower-class people that are now homeless due to the economic collapse caused by a few corrupt capitalists literally breaking the law & committing fraud—even those lower-class people who had nothing to do with housing, merely losing their job due to the ripple effect. But they live like kings compared to our pitiful rich who deserve all o’ your pity—or a’least those lower-class people deserve their worsened conditions, unlike the rich… ’cause we say so.

This is bewildering. See, dirty anarcho-commies can get ’way with playing the empathy card, ’cause they believe everyone is special & that we should all get ’long. When one believes that “rational self-interest” is the “one moral code” to rule them all, then whining ’bout other people not feeling sorry for you makes you look like a blubbering hypocrite. Tell those capitalists to quit bitching, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, & step-up their hiding skills. The fear o’ being mauled to death by mobs is only the market putting pressure on capitalists to hide better, which will lead them to do so, creating mo’ efficiency in the hiding industry. Think o’ how many jobs we can create through these new industries that focus on helping capitalists hide from angry mobs. Have you no entrepreneurial imagination, Forbes?

This is added with a dose o’ “No True Scotsman” fallacy in regards to the purported fans o’ capitalism:

Not even today’s Tea Party movement seems committed to capitalism in any deep sense.

“I say so, therefore it’s true. I don’t even need to ’splain what I mean by ’any deep sense,’ much less try to prove this terribly humble claim.”

To be fair, it is surprising, this lack o’ ardent support for a philosophy that upholds selfishness… well, ’cept when one selfishly supports government force when it benefits one. Scratch that: this lack o’ ardent support for a philosophy that upholds individualism… ’cept when one complains ’bout how one needs to network so much to succeed in capitalism, which is just a ’scuse for them to attack capitalism’s true philosophy, which is freedom… ’cept for that whole need for government to protect property…

Hmm…

Maybe the reason nobody ardently stands for capitalist principles is that capitalism doesn’t hold any consistent principles.

Salsman seems to interpret “egoism”—a pretentious term for ’selfishness’ that better hides its practitioner’s true mindless narcissism—but seems to expect a lack o’ selfishness when it comes to capitalists such as Buffet & Gates supporting government subsidies that benefit them, which Salsman bemoans. Maybe Salsman should stop being jealous o’ such successful businesses, pull himself up by his bootstraps, & get better @ networking with the government—that’s clearly what the market argues is the superior path to success.

He goes on to misinterpret what are clearly the US’s 4 foremost economists: Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek, & Barack Obama.

He whines that Marx apparently agrees that capitalism is efficient, & yet still mysteriously criticizes it simply ’cause it’s mean ol’ selfish efficiency. I’m amazed Salsman could be so ignorant o’ Marxism in a way that even Misesians aren’t. Everyone knows that Marx famously—wrongly—argued that capitalism would collapse, ’twas such a wreck o’ a system. You’re right: he totally thought capitalism was practical!

He shows this by showing how Marx preferred capitalism to its predecessors, forgetting to mention that socialism wasn’t ’mong those predecessors. To be fair, it is surprising that a man who practically jerked off to modernity would hate older economic systems.

O, wait, he does acknowledge this in the next paragraph, only to interpret it as “Capitalism will fail ’cause it’s evil.” That’s not an exaggeration: Salsman literally puts “Capitalism must ’fail’ because it is ’evil’” in Marx’s mouth. You know, 1 thing that annoys me ’bout procapitalist propagandists is that they’re terrible @ it. C’mon: was that truly the best strawmanning you could do?

Salsman’s criticism o’ Keynes is nothing but Godwin’s Law. He honest-to-god proves that Keynes’s criticism o’ capitalism is bad ’cause Keynes praised Hitler once (since we know that no capitalist economist ever did¹). Forbes’s writing standards are so low they couldn’t pass a high-school logic class. Why do you rich people keep trying to validate all o’ these mean people’s hatred o’ capitalism by acting like such morons? Does money have chemicals in it that cause brain damage—must be put there by the evil Fed, I bet!

I want to emphasize that this silly blog post written by some bum using mainly Wikipedia links as citations has mo’ academic quality than an article posted on Forbes. If that doesn’t make Forbes feel embarrassed, they must have no shame (they don’t; capitalists never do). C’mon, my 6-year-ol’ nephew could point @ that argument & go, “That’s stupid.” I would be physically incapable o’ writing something like that, it’s so obviously stupid!

(Sadly, this isn’t the worst argument Forbes has used gainst Keynes; ’nother spewed some pseudopsychiatric bullshit to argue that Keynes’s homosexuality ruined economics forever. Forbes is truly the bastion for classical liberalism².)

Salsman’s shameless lack o’ honesty continues when he describes Hayek:

In The Road to Serfdom (1944), where he warned, correctly, that the seemingly benign welfare state can lead to a totalitarian [emphasis mine].

When has this ever proven to be correct? Name 1 welfare-capitalist country that has ever turned into Leninism. Name 1 Leninist country whose origin wasn’t from violent revolution & came from parliamentary social democracy. Remember when Western Europe became totalitarian Leninist dystopias under those vile labor parties?

No? No evidence Salsman? Not 1?

Shocking. You’ve shown yourself to be so intellectually honest, so inscrutable before. I’ll tell you what: I’ll give you the benefit o’ the doubt. Maybe you thought 1984 was a documentary ’bout the UK.

Anyway, he whines that even Hayek doesn’t take seriously the moral quality o’ narcissism; but, ’course, as already demonstrated, neither does Salsman, considering his whines gainst Gates & Buffet selfishly benefiting from government intervention. Capitalism isn’t even based on self-interest or “individualist ethic,” as it demands people throw ’way personal gains through government intervention for the—purportedly—collective benefit o’ superior efficiency. & you’d think anyone trying to form a business—a capitalist collective, essentially—writing for a newspaper the collects procapitalist writers together would realize the absurdity o’ praising capitalism for serving “individualist ethics.”

If Salsman were truly an individualist, he wouldn’t be trying to build his career on digging into capitalists’ pants but by living in the wild, growing all his own food. ’Course, if he did that, he’d likely die; hence why individualism never succeeds & why all o’ the most powerful organizations in the world—including the US & multinational corporations—are immensely collectivist.

But then, maybe it’s all that socialism that causes businesses & Forbes to exist. I’m sure when the capitalist revolution happens—it’s coming any minute now! The socialists are as we speak burying the seeds to their own demise!—businesses will whither ’way & we’ll finally have a Robinson Crusoe in every human!

Last, he criticizes a politician’s propaganda blurbs probably shat out by some speech writer in a minute as futilely as I do for him. Obama may love capitalism, but he doesn’t love it for the right reason—the reason that has never succeeded ever in history. You’re right: how absurd o’ him. Fuck destitute hell holes like Sweden; give me… I can’t even think o’ an example, ’cause Salsman refuses to specify which practical application o’ which arbitrary version o’ capitalism that he supports. Somalia when ’twas “anarchist”?—or rather, Americans’ ignorant perception o’ what “anarchism” is. Pinochetian Chile? The Gilded Age? Well, it can’t be then, ’cause there was that aforementioned socialistic railroad-building existed.

How tragic that this purportedly practical economic system has no actual practical application in history—nothing but evil socialism, whether the practical Western versions or the failing Leninist versions.

& it’s sad that someone who brags ’bout capitalism’s practicality has no practical knowledge himself. Perhaps it’s less that every other purported procapitalist is a shitty procapitalist & mo’ that Salsman is & that the so-called shitty procapitalists understand that capitalism’s practicality comes from its lack o’ consistent principles—that government intervention strengthens capitalism rather than weakening it.

’Course, he isn’t practical-minded, so he obviously doesn’t understand why something could be practical. He’s simply regurgitating American propaganda without understanding the purpose for propaganda: tricking idiots into thinking their dominant ideology is great in every way, even if they’re contradictory. Hence why capitalism is both free, but not too free as to let homeless savages trespass on property; hence why capitalism is both individualist, but not too individualist as to eliminate bureaucratic corporations: “Whatever gets you dolts to let me keep my riches—defend it ardently, even—I don’t give a shit what you idiots want to believe.” I bet Salsman will also write an article on how awesome Washington was for not lying ’bout cutting down that cherry tree or ’bout good ol’ Betsy Ross, who received the design for the American flag straight from American Jesus.

Unless rational self-interest is understood as the one moral code consistent with genuine humanity, and the moral estimate of capitalism thus improves, socialism will keep making comebacks, despite its deep and dark record of human misery.

Considering it’s purported proponent doesn’t even understand it, we must be in trouble then.

Addendum:

Also, fuck Forbes for splitting the article into 2 pages ’tween when I 1st wrote this & when I was finishing the final draft. Stop doing that, you idiots: it only makes it a pain in the ass to find specific parts o’ an article & makes me wade through mo’ o’ Forbes’s dumbass thoughts o’ the day.

---

Footnotes

I’ve begun to feel bad ’bout my article mocking moderate liberals for their recent election failures, not ’cause I mocked moderate liberals—that part I still stand by—but ’cause I mocked some article wherein Noah Smith praises mainstream economists for, by his own account, fucking up the economy by being corrupt liars. Looking back, I should’ve taken this as subtle sarcasm, since clearly no one who is an assistant professor @ a prestigious college—if your college doesn’t just hand out coupons for digital cameras for diplomas, I consider it prestigious—could write this article unironically…

Right…?

This article is not from his usual den o’ faux-nerdy obnoxiousness, but @ the den o’ the pasty-faced known as Bloomberg. Said article has a not-@-all-arrogant title that seems to imply Smith’s humble goal o’ being the the world’s ultimate arbiter on who deserves what. Since “free” market economists supporting economic authoritarianism is the rule mo’ than the exception, that’s not the odd part; no, the fun part must be built up like fresh pancakes…

1st we start with some fun strawmanning:

There’s a common myth that standard economics predicts that people are paid an amount of money equal to the value of the things they produce. Actually, this isn’t true – in fact, the idea doesn’t even make sense.

It’s a good thing this common myth was 1 you made up, then. Most critics assume economists assume that workers get paid based on the value they give, since that is what a logical society would do—though as we shall see, Smith doesn’t think our current economy does. I don’t know any leftist who assumes workers are all just independents who do everything themselves. In fact, that sounds mo’ like a laisez-faire fantasy, if anything. Would be awfully difficult for the evil capitalists to exploit them if said capitalists didn’t actually exist.

In standard economics […] you get paid an amount equal to the amount that the company’s production increases when it hires you.

Which employers surely know, since every business comes with a special “value-creation” meter that can predict just how much value a worker will create before that worker actually does anything. This proves that labor has nothing to do with value-creation, as those scurvy-dog Marxists claim, since they don’t even work to create value: just having their name on the business’s employee list is ’nough to inspire the computers that actually do all o’ the work to feel mo’ confident & to work harder.

People generally don’t produce things individually. They produce things together, with the assistance of capital such as machines and buildings.

It’s ’bout time someone finally told market-critics this. As we all know, leftist critics o’ mainstream economics routinely view the economy as nothing mo’ than independent individuals in some Robinson Crusoe world, nor do they ever acknowledge capital’s involvement in the economy. That’s why Marx’s most famous work was called Das Kapital—’cause as the 1st sentence will tell you, “Das Kapital ist eine bürgerliche Lüge.”

So when a company hires you, its marginal productivity changes, because your presence affects the marginal productivity of everyone else at the company.

I just imagine Smith snickering as he typed this. It’s true, too: a common thought that pops into workers’ heads is, Man, if only I had some guy standing near me, his warm breath streaming down my neck, I’d work so much harder! This empty space is just so distracting!

In other words, in a competitive, classical economy…

O, good, we can just stop here, since we’re not in that kind o’ economy, so its dependent variables can be safely ignored.

Market economists always do that shit, too. They’re like those too-good-to-be-true ads that get you hyped, only for the microscopic print to admit, “only applies to competitive economies,” when “competitive capitalism” is right up there with “benign dictator” or “communism that hasn’t utterly fucking failed” as 1 o’ those elusive concepts that’s s’posed to distinguish it from the evil versions that have actually ever existed in reality.

He brings up this chart that shows that worker productivity & wages generally matched during the mid-20th Century, also commonly known as the “Golden Age” o’ capitalism.

All right. Then he goes into a perfectly normal description o’ how average & marginal productivity differ ’cause… wait, what?

No economic model says that people get paid based on average productivity. If they did, there would be no income left over for capital — no profits, rents or interest. We’d be living in a sort of a [sic] Marxist world, where labor is the only thing with any value.

OK, now go back & look @ that graph he just brought up ’gain—the 1 where average productivity & what people were paid matched so closely.

We must credit Professor Noah Smith, for revealing the government myth o’ the “Golden Age” o’ capitalism to truly be the vile Golden Age o’ Marxism! So that’s how we won the Cold War. Well, like they say: fight fire with fire. I just wish our wise ol’ conservatives would teach these young punks & their radical “free” markets how much better things were in the good ol’ red-blooded American 50s, when everything was swell; teenage women didn’t get pregnant all the time;—or a’least we pretend they didn’t—black people were still kept in fea… O, wait, we still do that; & we all held hands & chanted “This Land is My Land” before statues o’ Marx & Engels.

He then makes up some bullshit ’bout how robots & the Chinese are stealing all our jobs, but the latter’s OK, ’cause Chinese workers will ’ventually get bored & find something else to do. God damn it, Smith, are you mixing up reality with your favorite science fiction books? This is just like that microfiction you wrote ’bout the economy wherein every individual’s income distributions are randomized every so oft. You’re not going to be the Twilight Zone for economics, so give it up. For 1, economics itself is already as logical as the Twilight Zone.

Still, I couldn’t agree mo’ with his reverse Yakov Smirnoff joke:

In a globalized capitalist economy, you don’t get paid what you produce – in fact, you don’t produce anything without others to help. What you get paid is what you can convince other people to give you.

So quit bitching & start whoring yourself to your brethren. Shit, as we saw earlier, Smith’s been doing that for a while. Or would you rather live in 1 o’ those collectivist economies like the Soviet Union or 1950s America?

I didn’t think so.

Nevertheless, this point has been proven in a mo’, ahem, scientific—& I must say mo’ eloquent—manner elsewhere.

Other fine work:

• An aptly-titled article, “Reality Might Topple a Beloved Economic Theory.” This apparently “disquiets” him, which is odd, as the many times it’s done so in the past hadn’t seemed to.

• Here Smith rightfully points out how frivolous the Nobel Prize is, since they love giving those peace prizes to war criminals, & ’cause the winners are all fatties who stuff their face with chocolate—no offense to the fatties who stuff their face with peanut butter, ’stead; they’re still cool.

• Here Smith outright acknowledges that he’s a troll, but just an obnoxiously generic 1—what he calls the true oppressed class! Mostly, this is just a ’scuse for him to spew pseudoeconomic nonsense to pretend he’s a special, brilliant snowflake. He is wrong.

  He also seems to think Lolcats & Rickrolling were creative. He is wrong ’gain.

• Here’s a hilarious article that I’ll also take as trolling wherein he argues that Wall-Street people make so much money ’cause they suffer so much. For instance, you may have to tolerate being an asshole & causing other people harm—& nothing’s worse than having someone else inconvenienced. You may even be inconvenienced ’nough to punching your underling! Think o’ how your hand will hurt after hitting that li’l freak’s hard head!

  He also joins with ’nother Bloomberg writer in trying to sucker young people into giving up such lucrative careers in return for their “soul.” After all, “moral purpose can be worth a lot of dollars – just look at the low wages in the nonprofit sector.”

• Here’s an article wherein he creams himself over a sexy cat fight ‘tween Krugman & some smarmy-looking bastard o’ which I’ve never heard. I’m particularly amused by Smith’s insinuation that Krugman has mo’ sweet-ass cred than Stephen Gould & John Maynard Keynes—Krugman, the same economist who claimed that silly fiction stories about imaginary hot dog factories are mo’ important than facts; the same economist who supported many o’ the causes o’ our current economic depression, while now shamelessly, hypocritically pretending to be on the forefront gainst the very economics he suported before–including the same inaccurate deficit & inflation scaremongering for which Smith hypocritically criticizes Austrian-schoolers.

  Actually, Smith later whines ’bout how tragic 2 rich people disagreeing has become & hearfully wishes they’d just get together & put their dicks in each other’s bums already, your flirtatious bickering isn’t fooling anyone, before Smith’s nerves give in to so much conflict & he faints. I’m always amused by the kind o’ things rich people find troubling. Surely you’ve had greater tragedies in your life, right? Like, maybe you had ice cream fall off its cone once–which, judging by this article, caused Smith to spend months ‘lone in his room with the lights off in deep depression (Some o’ us have learned the wise wisdom o’ optimistic advice from such sites as Careerealism & do not let such circumstances dictate our actions, but take the initiative ourselves, & spend months ‘lone in our rooms with the lights off without waiting for ice cream to fall off our cones, thank you).

• Here’s an article wherein he conflates the worst war in human history to conservatives feeling a tad sad ’bout not being able to take out their bitterness on women & gays as much as they used to. This comes with a side order o’ an appeal to gross collusion ‘tween the 2 milquetoast political classes with the kind o’ smugness that conservatives despise liberals for harboring. This “compromise” is essentially everyone thinking the same way Smith does. ‘Course, anyone with the merest o’ political understanding will predict that conservatives, laissez-faire-libertarians (though in Smith’s defense, I don’t think he even tries to compromise with them, which shows that he has some taste), & leftists (who, in fairness, will hate anything, anyway) will tell Smith to fuck off & continue to hate him; but centrists & moderate liberals can get a warm fuzzy feeling o’ smug satisfaction @ their civility.

  That this smug self-congratulation for moderate liberals comes after their utter fucking failure in American legislative branch is even funnier. Yes, keep telling yourselves you’re successful, liberals. Hee, hee, you’re so cute.

• Finally, we have a ludicruous article praising a ludicrous study that “proves” that economists are not ideological by flaunting their political & linguistic ignorance–that is, after a tacky, irrelevant photo o’ some woman holding up scales. Said study is reams o’ arbitrary mathematical postmodernist nonsense meshed with an arbitrary text-searching test that only checks which words are used, not their actual content. So, for instance, if a paper talks ’bout mental illness, it’s apparently left-wing, while if it talks ’bout bank notes or the Federal Reserve, it’s right-wing (p. 14). That this paper seems to only focus on Democrats & Republicans & already makes assumptions o’ what are “neutral” political activities, which they refuse to include in their data, shows not only that the evidence is partly based on the conclusion–not necessarily nonfalsifiable, but certainly absurd–but that this study’s writers are ignorant o’ politics, as well as language (p. 12-13).

  In truth, the methodology & the conclusion o’ the paper ironically demonstrates the very bias economists in general truly have: centrism. The paper focuses purely on Democrats & Republicans, with those who fall between them considered “unbiased”–which ironically relies on the biased view that the Democrats & Republicans are an objective measure for determining the “biased” sides. This is unsurprising, as economists are superstitiously fearful o’ being viewed as “biased,” & thus try to fake nonbias through simply regurgitating the “centrist” mainstream hivemind. This same philosophy affects the writers o’ this very study, leading them to mistake “centrism” as “nonbiased,” when it isn’t. This can clearly be proved by comparing US politics to other countries’ politics & noting that what is “centrist” in the US may be radically different from other countries’ centrism; & thus, in reverse, that those “centrisms” may be “biased” toward the left or right. In essence, this study tests bias by harboring a bias for the US way o’ thinking. If an economist were to think in a way mo’ like ‘nother country’s dominant ideology, that economist would be evilly biased, while an economist who regurgitates US dominant ideology would be “unbiased.”

  But fuck that boring noise: read the comments for that article & feast on… whatever nonsense these people are blubbering ’bout. The great part o’ the insane asylum known as the internet is that it’s impossible to tell which parts are passive-aggressive sarcasm or authentic delusions–can you discern which is which on this very blog?

  In particular, I’m glad Noah Smith linked this brilliant critique o’ New Republic (though I disagree with Prof. deBoer’s callous indifference toward the well-being o’ Stalin’s cat). I would like to see that kind o’ high-quality analysis from you for once, Smith.

• O shit, how could I forget Smith’s laughable attempt @ foreign-policy analysis with his scaremongering ’bout the upcoming World War 3 gainst the vile Chinese.

  A few succulent bits:

  [A]bout 40% of the world has resolutely refused to adopt U.S.-like systems, and democracy has actually been in retreat since slightly after the turn of the millennium, if you believe Freedom House.

  I don’t, tragically ‘nough, since I can’t imagine a political system that’s virtually never existed ever to be in decline. I love how people who lusciously praise America’s “democracy” are so ignorant o’ the US’s actual political philosophy or what “democracy” even is. Even laissez-faire libertarains o’ all people have bothered to actually graduate high school & learn that the US isn’t a democracy, never was 1, is a republic, which keeps the dirty poor from asserting themselves, yadda yadda. This isn’t obscure shit hidden in badly designed websites by anarchists; any high school history textbook mentions this shit. Smith should read basic history for a mere second before spewing propaganda so he actually gets the propaganda right.

  He then spews data & a few caveat points without any analysis o’ how it matters. Mo’ importantly, nowhere does he actually ‘splain why 2 countries with nuclear weapons should go to war with ‘nother country with nuclear weapons, despite the absence o’ such even in the far bitterer Cold War.

  @ the end he admits that this is all bullshit he pulls out his ass, but then he self-fallatingly declares, “But just in case this is where things are headed, it pays to be honest with ourselves about the facts.” I agree: in case o’ events that have no reason to ever occur outside o’ fantasy literature, we must memorize random data in case China demands us all to win a China quiz or else they’ll send their UFOs down & conquer us all like they did in the teevee movies.

  The comments have a variety o’ sentiments–none o’ which are deeply considered, shockingly. The most fitting would have to be Anonymous’s “What kind of bullshit is this?” even if it comes after the unapt praise for Smith’s economic posts; though, admittedly, learning ’bout (laissez-faire) libertarianism being a Jewish conspiracy o’ Marxists must come as a close 2nd.

  There are mo’ scaremongering, too. Clearly, Smith is obsessed with living out his fantasies o’ living in his favorite Tom Clancy thrillers, even if it requires him to pretend that nuclear weapons have never been invented.