If you don't follow, don't worry about it (I barely do).
I did not follow this from the beginning and am trying to wade through it now, and honestly it's just a lot of fighting over modern macro models.
Two things I definitely disagree with Keen on:
1. He's making a fuss over how people are misinterpreting him, and a lot of it originates from his discussion of the "underlying principles" of DSGE models. Nick Rowe, Paul Krugman, and others jumped on Keen for an uninformed characterization of the underlying principles of DSGE, and then Keen gets REAL bent out of shape, as do his defenders. He subsequently protests that what he was talking about was New Classical macro! I'm sorry, Keen, but if you want people to understand you you've gotta spell it out better than that - and if they don't understand you you certainly shouldn't get mad at them. The "underlying principle" of DSGE models go way back to the 1920s, and have nothing whatsoever to do with New Classical macro. If you ask someone about how DSGE modeling approaches first started coalescing, they'd mention Ramsey and Solow, which came DECADES before New Classical macro. That's the natural interpretation of "underlying principles". If you mean New Classical, just say "New Classical" and don't blame Krugman or New Keynesians or DSGE for models that came out in the 70s and 80s.
2. Keen's "more Keynesian than Keynes" attitude is frustrating too, and he insists non-Post-Keynesian Keynesians call themselves "New Walrasians" because that's what the IS-LM model is. He's right about the IS-LM model, of course - and I take that as a compliment. Walras was a brilliant economist, and any decent modern economic theory owes Walras a lot. But that's beside the point of whether we're "Keynesian". Keynes and Hicks did disagree on the relevance of the loanable funds market to the determination of the interest rate. Many of us think Hicks had it right. But the model itself incorporates all of Keynes's own insights. This isn't really sufficient for saying we're not Keynesians. As far as I know, Keynes and Robinson never accepted the idea of mark-up pricing that Keen is famous for promoting in his theory of the firm. Robinson and Keynes preferred the New Keynesian interpretation of a departure of price from marginal cost as a result of market power. This was the whole point of Robinson's book on imperfect competition -a New Keynesians treatise ahead of its time! Should we banish Keen from the Keynesian paradigm for this? Probably not. He should extend the same courtesy to Krugman.
I may develop an appreciation of Keen yet... one of my courses this fall will be Macroeconomic Political Economy, which will have heavy doses of Post-Keynesianism. I'm looking forward to it. Nevertheless, this first foray into Keen leaves me less impressed with him than I know many of you wish I would be.