I made no more claim to him in his entirety than anyone quoting one aspect of Nietzsche would to all of his ideas.
I'm not asking you to stand by anything other than the quotation itself. I just think you probably saw this quotation out of context and don't understand it, the author, or the work it discusses. My guess is that you came across it either from Thomas Sowell directly, or by a fanboy posting in some other forum.
Anyway, the quotation is from Schumpeter's review of Kenyes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. It was published in The Journal of the American Statistical Association 31(1936): No. 196, p 792-797
In this review, Schumpeter says many glowing things, including this: "That advice (everybody knows what it is Mr. Keynes advises) may be good. For the England of today it probably is." Followed by comments that it's essentially neo-Ricardian rubbish. Which makes sense if you know Schumpeter. Schumpeter then embarasses himself by essentially claiming that Keynes' creation of Aggregate Supply and Aggregate Demand are nonsense. Oops Joe.
But really, what that article is all about is Schumpeter as statistician complaining about the generality of The General Theory and that Keynes was essentially writing statisticians out of the process. Schumpeter would later argue the flaws of Kenyes's and Ricardo's static models of financial and argue for dynamism based off of more complicated mathemtaical models that could move beyond simpple ceteris paribus. He also thought Keynes' construction of some abstract "Propensity to Consume" was too etheral and couldn't be quantified. Oops Joe redux.
And then we get to the concluding paragraph of the article, which is where your quotation appears. The conclusion begins like this "The less said about the last book
the better." The last book, Book VI: Short Notes Suggested by the General Theory, is all that your quotation discusses. Here Keynes talks mostly about high interest rates and propensity to save.
Yes, your whole quote is from a statistics journal written by an econometrician referring to Keynes's few chapters on interest rates. It has nothing to do with the rest of Keynes' work, which he remains fairly positive about (except when he just screws up). Schumpeter's does dissent from the Keynesian position rather voicerously later in his career, but not in the way you seem to think and not to any significant extent. It's mostly about the role of the entrepreneur in relation to the state (which still needs an active interventionist policy to handle business cycles).
So, when I said I didn't think you really got the quoation, that's what I meant.