When you said that he believes that Keynes was debunked, I assumed - perhaps incorrectly - that he was relying on those who twist actual history.
I am no expert on Keynesian theory at all, and it may well be fatally flawed. But those who claim to "debunk" it (rather than point out its shortcomings) tend to rely on cooked numbers, at least from what I've read.
If he's basing his opinion on facts, that's cool, and however much he may disagree with me, I respect that. If he's basing his opinion on agenda based opinion columns that twist the truth around, that's what I'm criticizing.
And I see a lot of the latter, which is why I jumped to that conclusion.