While we're on the subject of Keynes, some good questions have been generated in response to my previous post on the subject.
One good friend asked me for source material on Keynes’ fixation for “bed and boy”. You might want to try THIS biography of Keynes. In Ian Hodge's book Baptized Inflation: A Critique of 'Christian' Keynesianism, he says that the academic world generally knew nothing of Keynes’ obsession for little boys until Michael Holroyd discussed it in his biography of Lytton Strachey (who, like Keynes, was a member of the “Bloomsbury Circle”).
I have also been asked about the following sentence from my article: “Keynes’ rejection of the Biblical ‘sowing and reaping principle’ in favour of immediate gratification was not limited to his economic theories, but formed the centrepiece of his deviant sexual lifestyle.”
One person wrote, “The implication here seems to be a linking of the rightness or wrongness of Keynesian economics to the rightness or wrongness of JMK's sexuality. ...attempting to form a causal relationship between economics and sexuality either must be far more thoroughly underpinned as a legitimate linkage, or limited in its application due to the ease of rejecting your assessment by those who do not share your views on the link.”
I am struggling to see how the sentence quoted above links the rightness or wrongness of Keynesian economics to the rightness or wrongness of JMK’s sexuality. In logic, if the truth or falsity of one proposition is linked to the truth or falsity of another proposition, we call that link a biconditional. For example, under most conventional definitions of ‘being alive’, we can describe the relationship between sustained breathing and being alive as a biconditional relationship: if it is true that I am doing sustained breathing, then it must be true that I am alive, and if it is false that I am doing sustained breathing, it must be false that I am alive.
Now I am neither arguing nor implying that Keynes’ sexual deviations have that type of relationship with his economics theorizations. Nor am I asserting or implying that there is a causal relationship between Keynes economics and his sexuality. Rather, my position is that one’s worldview and unconscious or conscious religious orientation/s necessarily seeps into all areas of one’s life, including but not limited to the web of multiple reciprocities that make up a person’s philosophical and ethical commitments. Ergo, to the degree that Keynes’ worldview and unconscious or conscious religious orientations involved a rejection of the Biblical worldview, this found expression in the various aspects of his life that were antithetic to the Biblical worldview, including his economic postulations and his ethical deviations. It is in this sense that we may meaningfully assert that “Keynes’ rejection of the Biblical ‘sowing and reaping principle’ in favour of immediate gratification was not limited to his economic theories, but formed the centrepiece of his deviant sexual lifestyle.”
This is a very complicated way of saying the same thing that the apostle Paul expressed so simply in Romans 1, where he made the point that those who reject God are given over both to futile thoughts (Rom. 1:21) and to sexual perversions (Rom. 1:27). In the life of Keynes, we see both of these consequences of rejecting God. If we want to put this in terms of cause and effect, it would be that both the sexuality and the economics are effects of the same common cause: rejection of God’s law.
And I think Keynes would agree with me here, because seemed to understand (in a way many contemporary pagans do not) that if there is no God then anything is permisable. In commenting on G.E. Moore’s Principia Ethica, Keynes declared that “one of the greatest advantages of his [i.e., Moore’s] religion was that it made morals unnecessary – meaning by ‘religion one’s attitude to oneself and the ultimate and by ‘morals’ one’s attitude towards the outside world and the intermediate.” (The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, X, p. 436) Elsewhere he wrote, “We repudiated entirely customary morals, conventions and traditional wisdom. We were, that is to say, in the strict sense of the term, immoralists. The consequences of being found out had, of course, to be considered for what they were worth. But we recognized no moral obligation on us, no inner sanction, to conform or obey.” (The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, X, p. 446.) It may be easy to see this ethical antinomianism finding expression in Keynes obsession with little boys, but I am arguing that his economic foolishness is no less a symptom of his rejection of transcendent law. I believe I have good grounds to do so based on Romans 1.
One person left the following comment to the aforementioned article:
Very interesting! The main problem is that you say that Keynes had a homosexual "lifestyle". What is that exactly? As an individualist, homosexual, classical liberal of Evangelical Christian upbringing, I must call into question your assumptions here. Keynes' problem is not his sexuality, but rather his epistemology. You understand many things, sir, and after all if you highly prize music, you and I have something in common, other than our hatred for Keynes. I would encourage you to look beyond such facile argumentation based on collective idealogy. All homosexuals are not like Keynes. Smarten up, please! There is not one homosexual lifestyle, just as there is not ONE heterosexual lifestyle. Be careful, too, about associating Keynes's penchant for "boys" with his homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter, he did get married after all!).You make some good observations and raise some important questions. To start with, you suggest that the main problem is my contention that Keynes had a ‘homosexual lifestyle.’ Immediately after asking when I meant by that phrase (a question which I will answer in the following paragraph), you begin to call into question the alleged assumptions behind it. Immediately two problems present themselves. First, if it is unclear what I meant by homosexual lifestyle (hence your question), how can it be clear that the assumptions behind the phrase are faulty? Secondly and more fatal to your approach is the fact that you never explicitly identify what you think the alleged assumptions are which you call into question in the 4th sentence of your comment. This second point seems to reduce your argument to vacuity. Related to this is that you urge me to “look beyond such facile argumentation based on collective ideology” while never pointing out where the error in my reasoning is, nor the nature of the “collective ideology” I am allegedly using.
Summing up: Keynes had a problem with his WAY of thinking, which manifested itself in the sickness of his legacy, and with the immorality of his lifestyle, a lifestyle which you seem to incorrectly assume is a result of his homosexuality. That's just rubbish! The guy was a total moral and ethical wasteland beyond the activities of his sexual organs.
Am I getting through? I hope so. Perhaps you need to meet more people like me, and if you haven't already, then seek us out. Strong individuals who believe in liberty, freedom and micro-economics are not only Christian and heterosexual.
You go on to say that “There is not one homosexual lifestyle, just as there is not ONE heterosexual lifestyle.” The truth or falsity of that statement depends on how the terms are being defined. If by ‘homosexual lifestyle’ you mean what I meant by the phrase, namely the network of actions and behaviours by which and through which the sexuality of a particular individual is manifested and/or expressed, then it certainly follows that you are correct in urging that there is not merely one homosexual lifestyle or heterosexual lifestyle.
“All homosexuals are not like Keynes. Smarten up, please.” It is difficult to know how to respond to that since I am unaware that I said or implied anything to the contrary.
“Be careful, too, about associating Keynes's penchant for "boys" with his homosexuality...” Keeping strictly to the evidence, the association between homosexuality and paedophilia is difficult to deny (some of that evidence I have presented HERE), although it is true that much more research needs to be done in this area.
To receive automatic notification every time new material is added to this blog, send a blank email to phillips7440 [at sign] roadrunner.com with “Blog Me” in the subject heading.