As far as I understand, Austrians are precisely not classical liberals, but neoliberals.

Cf. for example Hayek’s critique of the classical liberal notion of the perfectly informed, rational market actor.

Keynes has to be THE most confusing and self-contradictory personality in orthodox economics. He had no original insights and the only reason political elites took a liking to him was because he gave them a logical, complicated copout for money printer to go brrrrrrr. He frequently changed his theories and ideas for political expediency and the idea that modern 'economists' take his teaching as gospel truth is just sad.

Murray Rothbard wrote an entire profile on the man [0] and I'd suggest anybody taking a stab at heterodox economics to read it.

[0]: https://mises.org/library/keynes-man-1

I'd rather have some Keynes than get pissed on with some 'trickle down' economics.

I would say, I'd bet nobody having an argument about economics here has actually read much Keynes, or anything about classical/neo-liberalism. It all just turns into "I recognize some word related to the right, so I'll virtue signal and keep hyping it." Or more, "I see a free market economy argument happening, I must jump in and comment because markets are from God and I must support".

When dealing with Marxist or Keynsians (or modern monetary theorists for that matter) it is a safe bet that the people implementing the policies haven't read and don't intend to follow the theory.

So I am simultaneously shy of saying "Kaynes was wrong" and confident that anyone claiming "Kaynes was right and we must do suchandsuch!" is saying the wrong thing. Ditto the other theories.