re posted from EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE REVIEW
This article appears in the November 9, 2018 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
John Maynard Keynes:
Magic & Mass Murder
Nov. 5—In November of 1715, in the first letter of what is known today as the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, Gottfried Leibniz declares to Isaac Newton’s stand-in, Samuel Clarke, “Natural Religion itself seems to decay in England very much. . . .” From that opening incision, Leibniz proceeds to lay bare two uncomfortable truths which the British oligarchy refuses to admit to this present day: the moral and cultural degeneration which accompanied the ongoing oligarchical takeover of the British state in the wake of the 1688 Dutch invasion; and the superstitious, occultish, anti-scientific nature of Isaac Newton’s fraudulent methodology.
Only in the most implausible realm of what is sometimes called “black humor” could we find ourselves in a world where a Newton or a Keynes is considered a serious thinker, let alone a “scientist,” or an “economist.” They, like others in their genus such as John Locke, Jeremy Bentham, Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells, were all servants of the British Empire—mere propagandists for the outlook, anti-morality, and geopolitical interests of that empire. They were all genetically devoted to continued British Rule, and everything they wrote and did throughout their lifetimes was in the service of that Empire.
From infancy to their breeding, their education, their training, and eventually their promotion to positions of influence, all of these individuals imbibed from the cup of oligarchical values. Each in his own way was groomed to serve the British Crown, at a time when the British Empire was engaged in killing more people than Adolf Hitler ever dreamed of. Only a gullible nincompoop of the highest order can seriously engage in an academic “ivory tower” analysis of Keynes’, Newton’s or Russell’s writings and judge the merits or demerits of their words divorced from the reality of their combined devotion to the continuation of oligarchical rule. Only a fool believes that morality can be separated from science or economics.
In reality, John Maynard Keynes was a diseased soul, one whose economic theories were based in fraud and occultism, and one who professed loyalty to the British Empire and profoundly anti-human Malthusian views throughout his life.
Double, Double Toil and Trouble
Among his many writings, John Maynard Keynes is primarily known today for his 1930 Treatise on Money, his 1933 The Means to Prosperity, and his 1936 (so-called magnum opus) The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Yet, prior to those “economic” writings, in 1921 Keynes authored A Treatise on Probability, and the methodology of all of Keynes’ later works has its axiomatic origin in his work on “probability,” a subject he had intensively studied from his university days all the way through the first World War.
In his 1921 work, Keynes asserts that knowable truth is impossible. The closest one can come to the truth is through what he calls “Direct Knowledge,” which according to Keynes comes entirely from either the senses or experience. Everything else falls within the category of “Indirect Knowledge,” which cannot be truly known but only approached, and ultimately guessed at. Keynes is explicit that neither Direct nor Indirect Knowledge represents the actual truth about anything. Therefore, one has to develop means to determine what might be “probable.”
The method Keynes employs—while intended to be intimidating to non-mathematicians—is in reality remarkably similar to that of the life insurance company, calculating the profit or loss of the imminent death of a client with an actuarial table. Keynes creates categories, such as “p,” probable belief—primary proposition; “α,” degree of probability; “h,” evidence on which we base our belief; and “q,” what we know—secondary proposition; all of which are designed to lead one toward some possible prediction of what might happen as a result of one’s actions.
Keynes spends a great deal of time discussing his proposed “Principle of Indifference,” which he insists must define the approach to solving any problem where there are equal degrees of probability. It is also worth noting, since Keynes is actually writing about mathematics and not economics, that he states in Part II of his book, “Fundamental Theories,” that the method he employs throughout this section is derived entirely from Bertrand Russell’s Principia Mathematica.
In the real world of the science of Kepler, Leibniz, Gauss and Riemann, what Keynes is engaged in is not science, not economics, and not really even mathematics—it is Fortuna. Take away all the bows and ribbons and what is left is the gambling theories of Galileo Galilei, Giralamo Cardano and Abraham de Moivre, and what is revealed is that the “economics” of Keynes resembles nothing so much as John Law at the gambling tables of Venice’s Ridotto. Nothing is known for certain. It is all chance; and it is all about money.
Far more important is that there is absolutely nothing in Keynes’ writings which deals with the question of the advancement of the human condition. Nothing about science, nothing about revolutionary inventions, nothing about increased human productivity or human creativity. It is entirely monetarist and entirely mathematical. Keynes has only one real concern: securing the stability and hegemony of British monetary institutions and maintaining rule by the British Empire—and like many failed gamblers before him, it is all about devising logical mathematical rules which will keep the flow of loot coming.
Keynes’ motivation is crystal clear, as expressed in his 1919 The Economic Consequences of the Peace, wherein he criticizes the harsh reparations payments which were imposed on Germany at the end of World War I. Keynes’ concern was not that people might suffer or starve; rather, that the severity of the scheduled debt payments was so onerous that Germany might default, thus threatening the creditor banks in London and elsewhere, and undermining the security of the British Empire at the very moment when it was emerging victorious from the hellish war it had instigated.
Before turning to Keynes’ career, it is useful to delve a little further into the question of the occult. Keynes and others of his type deserve no respect, not even of the type, “I know he is wrong, but he is very intelligent.” Let us dispense with that nonsense.
On July 13, 1936, at Sotheby’s auction house in London, John Maynard Keynes submitted the winning bid and took possession of a remarkable trophy: a metal chest full of Isaac Newton’s private, hand-written papers and lab books, almost three hundred years old, most never published. Keynes was shocked to discover that the chest was stuffed with writings by Newton on black magic, the transmutation of gold, and various occult practices.
Subsequent to that discovery, it has come to light that Newton was devoted to the occult for the entirety of his adult life, and that this pursuit of his became a near obsession in his later years, precisely at the time he was both Master of the Mint (1699-1726) for the British Crown and simultaneously engaged in a ruthless campaign to libel and destroy Gottfried Leibniz—all of this occurring, of course, in the wake of the 1688 “Glorious Revolution” which led to the creation of the predatory Anglo-Dutch Empire.
Newton had spent decades in pursuit of the “Philosopher’s Stone,” a delusory occult substance allegedly able to turn base metals into gold. Newton translated the “Emerald Tablet” (Tabula Smaragdina) from Latin into English—a work by the mythological Hermes Trismegistus, which purportedly held the secret for the transmutation of metals. What is most revealing is that in the Newtonian view, as expressed in the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, as well as in such other things as Newton’s concept of “Action at a Distance,” what is put forth—as science!—is the hermetic occultism of the “Emerald Tablet.” At a time when Leibniz, the student of Johannes Kepler, was pursuing Kepler’s approach to discovering lawful principles which govern the physical universe, Newton, guided by the occult, propounded a mixture of fixed mathematical rules combined with gremlins below the floorboards empowered with magical powers.
Is this not also the case with Keynes? He is both unconcerned and at a loss to explain the physical development of the human species. The noëtic power which enabled mankind to advance from a hunter-gatherer society of only several million to a global civilization with advanced Arts and Sciences is not something he cares to discuss. He can’t account for it, because if he did, he would have to admit the evil nature of oligarchical empire.
Befitting a true student of Bertrand Russell, Keynes accepts the existence of the oligarchically-controlled private Central Banking System as an axiomatic given. The subject of a Hamiltonian sovereign Credit System—the most successful economic system in human history—is nowhere to be found in his writings. Thus, it is no exaggeration to say that Keynes completely ignores reality. He simply cannot discuss or deal with scientific discovery, increases in technologically-intensive human productivity, or the proven success of Hamiltonian Credit.
Instead, he lives in a make-believe world, a world governed by magic, where money and the ability to slyly manipulate money, reign supreme. Slightly cleverer than Newton, he does not insist on fixed laws, but instead proposes that if certain mathematical procedures are followed, then a certain outcome is “probable.” If that probable outcome does not come to pass, then new computations, i.e., “incantations,” must be made to produce a better result. Pure magic! And all of this, as also in the case with Newton, is to perpetuate rule by the British Empire.
Molding a Homicidal Mind
From the moment that he entered Eton at the age of 14, Keynes was placed on a fast track for service to the British Empire. After a brief stint at Cambridge, in 1906 Keynes joined the Civil Service as an official in the India Office. In 1911 he published his first book, Indian Currency and Finance, and at the conclusion of World War I, he was appointed financial representative for the Treasury to the 1919 Versailles peace conference. During this period, he was also admitted as a member of both the British Order of the Bath and the Belgian Order of Leopold, feudal orders headed by the respective Monarchs of those countries.
It was during this period that Keynes also began a voracious sexual career. In his diary he lists homosexual encounters with 130 different men between 1909 and 1911.
To understand the species-nature of Keynes’ moral turpitude, it is useful to look at the circumstances surrounding the publication of Indian Currency and Finance. Between 1896 and 1900 two devastating famines swept through British-controlled India. Somewhere between 5 million and 12 million people died. As with the Great Famine of 1876-1878 in India, as well as the earlier Irish “Potato Famine,” these famines were a direct result of British colonial policy and can only be accurately categorized as willful genocide. In response to this British-instigated mass murder, the Congress Party was formed in India, and by 1905 many leaders of the Congress began to agitate for independence from Britain. In 1915, Mahatma Gandhi returned to India from South Africa and soon took over the leadership of the Congress Party.
This was also the period when Sun Yat-sen began sharply polemicizing against the British Empire and what he called British “Cosmopolitanism,” i.e., the subservience of nation-states to supra-national British monetary power.
In his 1911 book, Keynes—supposedly an economist—ignores all of this. Famine and starvation are never mentioned. Science, living standards and education are never mentioned. Indian leaders demanding freedom from British oppression are never mentioned. Instead, his topic is reform of the Indian currency and banking system, so as to integrate Indian finances more fully into the London-based global financial system, to make India a more functional—and subservient—member of the British monetary empire.
This was always Keynes’ singular focus—in 1911 with India, in 1919 at Versailles, in 1930-33 with the crisis of the British Pound, and in 1944 at Bretton Woods—defending and furthering the functioning and the power of British imperial monetary interests.
In his presentation to the November 3, 2018 LaRouche PAC Manhattan meeting, Will Wertz spoke about Keynes’ admiration for Nazi Germany. Keynes was also a passionate proponent of eugenics. He served as director of the British Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944. As late as 1946, shortly before his death, in his Galton Lecture to the Eugenics Society, Keynes declared eugenics to be “the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists.” This, of course, is very relevant to the speech delivered by Megan Beets to the October 20, 2018 LaRouche PAC Manhattan meeting on the British sponsorship of racist eugenics.
After 1933, Keynes attempted, largely unsuccessfully, to infect the Roosevelt administration with his ideas and policy proposals, but FDR’s commitment to a Hamilton Public Credit approach for uplifting the productivity of the nation took America in a different direction. The story of Keynes’ role at Bretton Woods—as reported by Will Wertz—is a testimony to the lifelong commitment of Keynes to the hegemony of British monetary rule and British Malthusian policy.
The Greek god Prometheus defied Zeus and gave mankind fire and science. The modern-day proponents of Keynes, such as Yanis Varoufakis and Bernie Sanders, have only proven—by their worship of Keynes and their loyalty to a British Malthusian “green” agenda—that they prefer groveling servitude at the feet of the London-based Zeus.