John Maynard Keynes and Jew Banking Rothschild Scammer Melichior

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Carl Melchior (October 13, 1871 — December 30, 1933) was a German banker.

Born in Hamburg, Melchior studied law and eventually was appointed a judge. In 1900 Melchior was made legal counsel to Hamburg banking concern, M.M.Warburg & CO. During World War I, he served with a Bavarian regiment of the German army and was seriously injured at Metz when he fell from a horse. After his recovery, Mechior went to work for the German government and beginning in 1919 served as an advisor for the financial and economic negotiations that began at the Paris Peace Conference. Following implementation of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was faced with numerous economic problems.

By 1921, Melchior deemed it advisable for the country to accept what he saw as an impossible war reparations burden stating: "We can get through the first two or three years with the aid of foreign loans. By the end of that time foreign nations will have realised that these large payments can only be made by huge German exports and these exports will ruin the trade in England and America so that creditors themselves will come to us to request modification."[1]

Over the decade, Melchior played an increasingly prominent role in the lengthy negotiations, earning international recognition for his command of both the financial and legal issues involved.

After having been made a partner at M. M.Warburg & Co, Carl Melchior became one of the co-founders of the Hamburg Morocco Society, an entity created to promote German mining in Morocco and expand economic activities in what was a country dominated by French business interests. In 1922, Melchior was appointed Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Hamburg based pharmaceutical-related consumer products giant Beiersdorf AG. His growing influence in the German economic community resulted in his 1926 appointment as the German representative on the League of Nations' Finance Committee. In 1928, he was named Committee chairman and following its creation in 1930, he served as a member of the board of the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland. His work resulted in him becoming friends with British economist John Maynard Keynes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Melchior

Past Imperfect
13 (2007) | © | ISSN 1192-131524 |

The Immoral Moral Scientist. John Maynard Keynes.

Nina Paulovicova, University of Alberta

This paper undertakes to examine one aspect of the worldview of
John Maynard Keynes - his alleged anti-Semitism. Keynes' anti-Semitic utterances long attracted the attention of his biographers:  
some suspected anti-Semitism to be a permanent feature of Keynes'
worldview, others refuted such claims and underlined the element of
reproduction of anti-Semitic clichés that already permeated Keynes
own milieu. The aim of this article is to reveal multiple layers that
moulded the nature of Keynes' anti-Semitism within the context of
his own socio-political milieu. When put in a dialogue with his
political gestures, Keynes' problematic utterances become to be seen
in a different light.

In view of the exhaustive analyses that John Maynard Keynes' many
biographers have made of every aspect and nuance of his character,
providing a short introductory portrait of him seems an almost vain
task. And yet some of the descriptions of Keynes' personality are
potentially striking. What does Virginia Woolf mean when she
describes Keynes as being like a quicksilver on a sloping board - a
little inhuman but very kindly, as inhuman people are? Similarly,
Skidelsky`s description strikes the same chord when he calls Keynes
an "immoralist" but also a magician, a dazzling performer, a saint
and a savior.1 Naturally, one is intrigued by these hints of an
"inhuman" or "immoral" side of Keynes when confronted by
Braithwaite's contradictory label of Keynes as "moral scientist" or
somewhat traditional classificatory labels such as "scientific political
economist" (Johnson and Johnson), a "great do-gooder" (James
Mead) or "more than economist," which is Lydia Keynes` rather
simple but poignant assessment of her husband. It is no doubt that
one dimension of Keynes' immorality refers to his early sexual
experience – homosexuality. Yet, it would be a mistake to evaluate
the meaning of "immoral" merely from the perspective of late
Victorian sexual moral codes. It is Keynes himself who provides us
with clues about intellectual and behavioral dimension of his own
immorality in his essay My Early Beliefs. Immorality connotes the
idea of repudiation of customary morals, conventions and traditional
wisdom. We [Keynes and his friends] recognized no moral
obligation on us, no inner sanction, to conform or obey...2 Piero
Mini claims that by being 'immoral' Keynes refers to extreme
individualism that provides Keynes and his friends with right to
judge their own actions. Being "immoral" thus means to be critical
of generally accepted values and norms of their own milieu."3 It is
exactly here, in the world of Keynes' character, where we have to
start if we want to understand his stance in the world of politics and
his attitude toward major philosophical, cultural and social
phenomena of his time. The aim of this piece in particular is to
examine a side of Keynes that was more or less ignored or
deliberately pushed aside by historians – the nature and substance of
Keynes' alleged anti-Semitism. It is not the aim of this piece to
produce an elaborate list and individual contextual analysis of all of
Keynes' problematic passages. What the author rather finds
intriguing is how a twentieth-century audience ascribes a
qualitatively different signifier to anti-Semitism than the audience of
Keynes' lifetime prior to the Nazi assault on the Jewish community
in Germany. From the semiotic point of view it is the quality of two
"semiospheres"4 that moulds the notion of anti-Semitism into
qualitatively different signifiers and might lead to a misinterpretation
of Keynes' moral values and political beliefs by a modern reader.

Hence it is important to look at this kind of "inhuman" face of
Keynes in the context of the nineteenth-century political and
personal milieus. Nor does this piece aim to defend or in any way to
diminish the weight of problematic anti-Semitic utterances. The
evidence points to Keynes' uncritical appropriation and reproduction
of anti-Semitic clichés rather than inner deeper resentment of the
Jews. Therefore, closer examination of John Maynard Keynes'
behavioral and psychological portrait would demonstrate the
weaknesses of any attempt to label Keynes by existing concepts of
anti-Semitism.

In general, this piece insists on scholars' awareness to
apply any kind of 'label' which itself provides the conclusive
diagnosis: often no further investigation is needed. Yet, once such an
investigation is carried out and the meaning of the problematic allconclusive
term carefully deconstructed or the subjects'
characteristics examined and extrapolated from the grip of label's
stigmas, the plethora of unequal fragments behind the seemingly
monolithic nature of both the, label and the subject becomes visible
and perhaps even desperately confusing.
The idolization of heroes` virtues and the demonization of
villains' vices are temptations with which many biographers struggle
in order to provide an objective analysis of their subjects. For various
reasons, be they ideological, commercial or political, the prestige and
respect of historical personalities is either embellished or diminished.
In either case, we are offered a half-faced portrait, a suitable medium
of opinion-manipulation that certainly lacks the desired element of
objectivity. Being aware of this danger, I will strive to retain the
balance of both – Keynes' virtues and vices.

Melvin Reder`s article The Anti-Semitism of some Eminent
Economists became an object of a disturbance that attracted the
attention of some scholarship. Reder recorded the views of Hayek,
Galbraith and Keynes to reflect on the mindset of this holy trinity of
hominus economicus in the twentieth century. Rather than
developing the connection between an individual's attitude toward
anti-Semitism and the substance of his theories, Reder exposed a
facet of contemporary culture of the trio and traced the differences
lying behind them. It was Ronald Hamowy who on the basis of
personal acquaintance with Hayek refuted Reder`s claim about
Hayek`s anti-Semitism as unsubstantiated and challenged Reder to
write a more insightful defense to support his argument. Here,
addressing not only Hayek and Galbraith but also Keynes, Reder
stressed the ambivalence of their anti-Semitism, a qualitative
descriptor misread by Hamowy. In his defense, Reder operates with
a notion of benevolence and hostility towards Jews. He puts these
aspects in a dialogue with a socio-cultural environment of the
individual economist, while strengthening his original claim about
the ambivalence of the intellectuals` anti-Semitism. The intensity of
anti-Semitic expression was, in Reder`s view, displayed only within
certain contexts and toward certain individuals.5 What were the
endogenous and exogenous influences that could potentially become
source of Keynes' alleged anti-Semitism? Is Reder`s claim about the
ambivalence of Keynes' anti-Semitism justified?

The intellectual atmosphere of the second half of the 19th
century undoubtedly had a profound impact on the formation of
Keynes as an intellectual. According to Allan Gruchy, J.M. Keynes'
approach to economic studies, being totalistic or aggressive, stems
from a new philosophical stream that rejected the Newtonian "atomic
hypothesis," which identified the economic system as a static order
composed of essentially independent parts. Keynes had abandoned
Newtonian philosophy and adhered to a new anti-Newtonian view:
We are faced at every turn with the problems of Organic
Unity, of Discreteness, of Discontinuity – the whole is
not equal to the sum of its parts, comparisons of quality
fail us, small changes produce large effects, the
assumptions of a uniform and homogenous continuum
are not satisfied.6   

According to this line of argument the general idea of organic unity
has a far-reaching impact in terms of rethinking the overall
functioning of the state and economy. The state rather than being
sum of its parts became ultimately viewed as an organic "whole" or
"a body". The overall stance and respectability of the state on the
world stage, as compared to other states, is negotiated through the
criterion of "the ablest" and "the fittest" - notions that emerged from
Darwinian evolution theory. In the context of an age when the glory
and power of the state is measured by the largesse of a colonial
dominium, the failures and weakness of the state are ascribed to a
failure to attain the colonial dream. Victorians were prone to regard
their age as an age of transition and profound crisis. Social tensions
and growing distress gave way to expectations of either revolt or
political revolution, or the possibility of social explosion.7 Hession's
concerns about the imminent danger of social explosions are refuted,
at least in connection with the early and mid-Victorian periods, by
G.M. Young – undoubtedly one of the greatest historians of
Victorian England.8 In his view it was Evangelicalism with its moral
code of respectability, discipline, seriousness and hard work which
helped the nation absorb the crisis that preceded economic or
political change in the early Victorian period. Whereas
Evangelicalism became a source of moral code and discipline,
Utilitarianism supplied the philosophy that stressed reason, the idea
of progress, and the necessity of reforms.9 In the middle of the
nineteenth century the equilibrium of both streams resulted in the
balance between tradition on the one hand and progress on the other.
In the course of the nineteenth century, the number of those who
believed that the government (or the state) should acquire a stronger
position in order to defend and protect citizens and their private
property had been increasing. The 1890s bore serious signs of the
decline of the Victorian age: whereas Germany was establishing its
 "place on the sun," the dominance of Great Britain in world politics
had been diminished. The shifts on the political chessboard ran in
parallel with the collapse of traditional values and beliefs. Toward
the end of the nineteenth century, Britain had been transformed from
an oligarchy to a democracy – the complex process that was reflected
in the crisis of Victorian traditional values that resulted from the
diminishing role of religion. Hence the fragmentation of midnineteenth-
century Victorian "solid" culture was another
accompanying side-effect of the overall societal crisis. Liberalism, in
Young's view, needed an "injection of new doctrines."10

These dazzling chiaroscuros of the profound political and
societal changes helped mould the intellectual world of the young
J.M. Keynes. An examination of Keynes' early writings helped to
uncover his portrait as a philosopher. Backhouse and Bradley even
celebrate Keynes as "the last great economist in the tradition of
philosopher-economist."11 Yet there is no consensus over J.M.
Keynes' philosophical background and the nature of his
epistemology. Braithwaite, Giere and Gruchy underline empiricism
as a basic philosophical strand behind J.M. Keynes' mode of
reflection and knowledge.12 Gruchy sees Keynes` knowledge
stemming from empiricism following in the footsteps of a post-
Darwinian orientation and ultimately reflecting the Weltanschauung
of the twentieth century.13 On the other hand, Harrod and Hayek
portray J.M. Keynes as a rationalist.14 Whereas Harrod and Hayek's
characterization of Keynes as rationalist is rather that of an obiter
dictum, O' Donell's basic thesis postulates that J.M. Keynes'
rationalism was a "particular kind," a Cambridge rationalism.15 It is
interesting to point to the contradiction between Keynes as empiricist
or rationalist and the side of Keynes that indulged himself in the
mysteries of irrational. Pierro Mini found a simple way out of this
conundrum. He looks at the slow process of transformation of
Keynes philosophical worldview. People simply change their
philosophies in the course of their hectic lives. Keynes eventually
repudiated rationalism and became fascinated by the realm of
irrational forces in human nature: a transformation which might have
been the outcome of the combination of multiple influences such as
the World War I or Keynes' inner "passionate anguish and soul
searching."16 Keynes' approach to the issues of contemporary ethics
and morality seem to bear more weight in our effort to trace the
nature of his anti-Semitism. Victorian Britain adhered to the
utilitarianism of Bentham, against which Keynes revolted. The
Benthamite moral code, "The greatest happiness of the greatest
number," was attacked by Moore in his Principia Ethica, which had
an immense influence upon Keynes.17 Skidelsky, Keynes` ablest
biographer, explains how the Benthamite principle was translated
into an understanding of welfare economics: increased welfare led to
increased happiness which ultimately resulted into increased
goodness. This simple causal formula defined the role of an
economist as an executor of goodness. Moore, on the other side,
realized that not everything that people want and long for is
necessarily good for them. Based on this view, wanting does not
necessarily correlate with ethical goodness. Applying Moore's
insight to the economic mode of thinking, one can conclude that
reforms that produce higher levels of income do not increase the
moral goodness of the universe. This was Moore's and Keynes` way
of contemplating moral issues in the face of the earthly deeds and
wants of homo economicus.18 Keynes' distaste for the acquisitive
society and his humanitarian concern for the underdog seem to be
partially related to this ethics. As moral goodness is not determined
by higher levels of income, the effort should be channeled away
from the cravings of society for more wealth. On the other hand,
pessimism about reaching moral goodness can potentially lead to
concerns about lower social strata as a vulnerable target of this mode
of thinking. Keynes realized the bias of Moore's ethics. He struggled
to take what was valuable in the Moorean teachings, namely "the
idealism, the critical attitude and precise vocabulary, the honesty
with self and the individualism."19 On the other hand he was trying
to escape its "narrowness, the self-centredness, the false view of
human nature and of oneself, the lingering utilitarianism and the faint
air of insincerity hanging over it."20 Keynes contemplated and
frequently debated these issues within the Bloomsbury intellectual
circle – "the Apostles."

Within the Bloomsbury group, frequently labeled by its
enemies as "an intellectual Mafia,"21 the talk was unusually frank. Be
it art, sex, religion, the ordinary concerns of daily life, the members
of the circle could express anything on their minds without any
restraints.22 In fact, they used the mind as an agent provocateur to
create a tension or even emotional crisis as an ideal condition for
"knowledge of the inner."23 Their discussions sometimes resembled
of what Freud called "chimney sweeping," i.e. getting rid of the
debris of their own psyches.24 Since 1905 young intellectuals would
meet on Thursday evenings to debate the contemporary societal
issues, criticize Victorian conventions or express their distaste of
existing bureaucratic machinery. The artists and intellectuals within
the circle either stubbornly defended their own stances or eagerly
attacked the arguments and views of the others. Over time certain
values had crystallized within the Bloomsbury group as a
consequence of rather constructive debates: pacifism, feminism,
friendship, creativity, freedom of expression and, above all, reason.25
The intellectuals did not work in isolation, but they debated the
issues in public and actively engaged in political action directed at
systematic reform at a ruling-class level, relating to lower classes as
a matter of conscience. As Leonard Woolf, the husband of Virginia
Woolf noted: "We were in the van of the builders of a new society
which should be free, rational, civilized pursuing truth and beauty."26
Yet, rationalism and reason did not always keep an upper hand
within the group. An atmosphere of rebelling against rationalism and
positivism and recovery of the unconscious and irrational permeated
the group as well. Bloomsberries, being a vanguard of revolutionary
ideas, displayed high tolerance for divergent views. They rejected
Victorian values and respectability, justified homosexuality as a new
counterculture, made femininity equal with masculinity, and exalted
the individual and friendship as the highest values.27 There is no
doubt that the group was not free of either anti-Semitism or
derogatory stereotyping. Scholarship does not provide a consensus
about Bloomsbury anti-Semitism. Whereas Alexander described it as
a "mild pervasive anti-Semitism as omnipresent and as unnoticed by
Leonard`s friends as the air they breathed"28, Reder refutes the claim
that Bloomsbury anti-Semitism was unnoticed. This issue eventually
requires more attention of scholarship. So far a brief sketch of
societal changes that had formed young J.M. Keynes' world and the
values of "the intellectual Mafia" which had, undoubtedly, molded
Keynes' intellectual profile has been offered above. Before we
proceed to the examination of Keynes' views of Jews let us briefly
address the scholars' views about anti-Semitism.
Antisemitism is a socio-cultural phenomenon. One of the
most challenging tasks is to define anti-Semitism on theoretical
ground. A theoretical framework that would consistently embrace all
the 'elements' pertaining to anti-Semitism would in fact amount to a
theory representing modern society as a whole.29 In their effort to
understand anti-Semitism in terms of fundamental dialectic of
civilization, Adorno and Horkmeier concluded that "anti-Semitism is
a deeply imprinted schema, a ritual of civilization."30
Universality of anti-Semitism is frequently a focal dimension
in scholarly debates. Vasecka defines anti-Semitism as "a universal,
substitution phenomenon" by underlining its "depth, permanence and
character."31 The idea of its universality is closely linked with the
notion of continuity. Scholarly disputes yield "continuity – break"
dichotomy, the debate briefly surveyed by Shulamit Volkov, the
scholar who defined anti-Semitism as a "cultural code" embracing
the "cluster of ideas values and norms."32 Continuity thesis embraced
various notions. Ettinger's "eternal anti-Semitism," i.e. continuous
transformation of the negative Jewish construct or Baron's "eternal
hatred for eternal people" treated anti-Semitism as a permanent
fixture of history.33 The emphasis on the culmination or acceleration
of anti-Semitism in Talmon's study stood as a substitute model for
the repetition of common patterns within continuity thesis.34 Some
authors managed to find the way out of the "continuity – break"
debate conundrum. Shulamit Volkov resolves this tension by
introducing a thesis of ideal balance:
In the last resort the two ["continuity" and "break"
approaches] are always intertwined, only mixed in
various degrees. Clearly from the historical point of
view, every event is rooted in the past, but at the same
time every phenomenon is at least in some way new and
unique. The ongoing debate about break and continuity
is thus only about correct proportions.35
Morphing through the course of the historical time, anti-Semitism
acquires meanings projected by the specific geopolitical, economical,
religious as well as ideological milieus. From latent form in the
period of relative stability it might escalate into an all-pervasive
racist equivalent at times of deep economic, political or national
crisis (Berger).36 Hence, its depth can be measured on the scale from
discrimination to outright violence (Katz).37 With regards to debate
about Keynes, it is crucial to evaluate his alleged anti-Semitism
against the cultural codes of his own milieu.
The essential body of literature looks at ethnic and racial
identities as being constructed by cultural practices and cultural
representations. David Norman Smith listed a number of these
concepts: Langmuir's "chimeria," Gisela Bock's "social racism,"
Poliakov's "demonology," or Guillaumin's "racisation." 38 Phillip
Dodd argues that specific forms of Englishness were being defined
between 1880s and 1920s to incorporate "the other" which
threatened to disturb the old social order. There is an effort to
incorporate "the other" in order to preserve traditional values through
an assimilation policy. The focus on newcomers' virtues such as
sobriety, thrift and high moral values is part of the assimilation
agenda.39 Brian Chayette argues that English writers actively
constructed the myth of 'the Jew' in relation to their own literary and
political concerns – hence the notion of "the protean instability of
'the Jew' as a signifier."

The scholarship on anti-Semitism in England displays a rich
spectrum of views. On the one hand the older theories express the
belief that anti-Semitism was somehow "different" in Britain than in
the rest of Europe. William Brustein's comparative research on anti-
Semitism in the period between 1879 and 1939 in Great Britain,
France, Germany, Italy and Romania was based on a rich data source
that included legislation and major national newspapers. By refuting
Goldhagen's notion of the exceptional nature of German anti-
Semitism, Brustein implicitly adheres to the view that anti-Semitism
in the targeted countries is similar. Defined as "multifaceted
prejudice," anti-Semitism became a viable tool to find the way out of
the complex contemporary crisis. Yet Brustein also acknowledged
specificities and different intensities of anti-Semitism within the
targeted European milieus. With Italy exhibiting the lowest and
Germany and Romania displaying the highest levels of prejudice
against Jews, Britain is left somewhere "in between."41 The views
about a lower intensity of anti-Semitism in Britain led to an
interpretation of the course of Anglo-Jewish history as the one of
optimism – the notion criticized and refuted by many historians.
Gisela C. Lebzelter introduced the view that in England prior to WW
I and WW II a "diffused" anti-Semitism lacked the vitality to be
mobilized into a viable political tool.42 But she treats the question of
why English, as opposed to German, anti-Semitism was successfully
diffused in cursory fashion. Todd M. Endelman sheds more light on
the problem. He notes that the attention of the British Empire was
directed to the more "exotic" peoples within their colonial domain.
Affairs such as the India mutiny (1857), the Jamaica revolt (1865),
and the Boer War (1899-1902) fed British anxieties about "racial
fitness" and "racial degeneration" more than concerns about Jewish
domination.43 Leon Poliakov offers a thorough treatment of the
events in Great Britain that gave way to the rise of anti-Semitism in
the period 1870 -1933.44 Serious deterioration of the climate was
marked in 1901 by the coronation of Edward VII – "the pleasure
loving son of Queen Victoria [who] preferred the company of
actresses and Jews to that of aristocrats and prelates."45 The colony
of over 100,000 Eastern European Jews, who settled in London
accused of forming their own state within a state, as well as the rise
of Jewish financiers and politician, released the trigger of anti-
Semitic sentiments. Yet, the Jews were not targeted as a single
national-religious entity. The "Jewish question" was rather "the alien
question."46 Since London was the home of other foreign settlers,
notably Germans, the natives often made a link between the Jewish
and German settlers based on the shared German language. Needless
to say, the Jewish newspapers opposed such a blurring of identities
and criticized the Times for "describing all Jews as Germans."47 This
perception proved to be fateful in the face of the tragic event of
sinking of Lusitania in May 1915, which unleashed xenophobic
sentiments and led to, what Poliakov calls the "refined anti-Semitism
of the elite."48

 While the First World War provided a stimulus for the
rise of anti-Semitism, the October Revolution "furnished it with
substantially more effective ammunition" and marked the phase of
open anti-Semitism (1917 -1922)."49 The images of the revolutionary
Jews undermining the traditional order and introducing the chaos
were profoundly disseminated through media such as the Times, the
Spectator or Evening Standard and haunted the minds of general
public. The media not only flattered the superstitious prejudices of its
audience but eventually built up the association between the
phenomena causing disturbances as a consequence of "conspiracies"
of the Jews. Yet, these tendencies were far from monolithic.
Poliakov points to the persistence of the opposite tradition in the
period between 1914 and 1918 which treated the Jews as the "heroes
of an epic, the altars of a religion." 50 Such attitude was widespread
among those provincial Englishmen who grew up respecting the Old
Testament. In regards to upper classes, Poliakov described anti-
Semitism as a "kind of political fashion... giving its supporters little
shivers of delight."51 After 1922, as it got used to the postwar world,
the public view was no longer heated by the threat of world
revolution and conspiracies of the Jews. The situation was changed
in 1933, when Hitler and his disciple Mosley in England disturbed
the relative peace once again.52
To assess the degree of pervasiveness of Keynes' anti-
Semitism, requires a great deal of attention to the question of "Who
was generally defined as an anti-Semite in Keynes own societal
milieu?" rather than "Which qualities of current forms of modern
anti-Semitism can be traced in Keynes worldview?" By doing so,
one diverts the attention from the "universality" or "continuity"
thesis" of anti-Semitism and recognizes the specific cultural codes
and modes of projecting the set of popular images within the targeted
period and geographical space. Tracing and understanding of such
cultural codes would shed more light on the contemporary definition
of an anti-Semite. However, due to the complexity of the definitions
of anti-Semitism, it is equally problematic to define an anti-Semite.
Some scholars define an anti-Semite through the lens of agency
embracing both, the object as well as the subject of anti-Semitism.53
The others define an anti-Semite against the scale of consistency of
the prejudices and perseverance of activities or verbal attacks against
the Jews and make a distinction between latent and active anti-
Semites.54 Leon Volovici defined latent anti-Semitism as uncritical
appropriation and eventual reproduction of anti-Semitic prejudices
and clichés - the definition which poignantly grasps the aspect of
JMK's own uncritical utterances about Jews. The attempts to
determine the stereotype of an anti-Semite within the larger context
of authoritarian personality are also generally well-known. Theodore
Adorno's famous F-scale released a torrent of criticism mainly due
to the assumed correlation between degrees of racism and one's
upbringing, i.e. authoritarian parenting style.55 Regardless the
criticism, Adorno's F-scale was praised either as being a "good
predictor of racist attitudes..."56 or a "reliable and valid instrument
of inquiry."57 Despite the looming controversy, so called
authoritarian syndrome traced within both, the intellectual and
ideological as well as personal and behavioral realm was generally
accepted.58 Apart from the famous F-scale, Adorno and his
colleagues developed so called "A-S scale" with an aim to detect
latent anti-Semitic tendencies.59 Adorno concluded that "anti-
Semitism was subjective and irrational in nature, generally grounded
in stereotypically distorted experience, rationalized in moralistic,
super-egoistic terms, inclined to the 'mythological confusion' of
mental dispositions and physical categories, and often linked to 'antidemocratic
feeling."60 Can we utilize Adorno's scales in assessing
inclinations of Keynes to authoritarianism and anti-Semitism?
Clearly, the specificities of the historical period against which the
scale was created cannot be ignored. Yet, the attempts to appropriate
Adorno's scales and construct a parallel form of F-scale expressive
of the cultural codes of the targeted milieus have been already made.
For example, its empirical tools were used in the investigations into
the support for a racist Dutch political party in 1980s.61 By slightly
rephrasing the items of the scale, Netherlands' scholars validated Fscale
and found a strong relationship with anti-Semitism.62 Similarly
Pflaum constructed a parallel counterpart of the F-scale by collecting
popular beliefs and myths in the 1920s.63 In order to assess the
degree of pervasiveness of Keynes' anti-Semitism against his own
historical period it would be an interesting project to construct a
parallel scale of Adorno's scheme by collecting the popular
perceptions of various historical timeframes: 1900 – 1914, First
World War England, interwar England and finally the period of
Hitler's succession to power 1933 – 1945 in Europe.

Eventually, to analyze Keynes' personal and moral dispositions against the items of
such an appropriated scale would be another challenging task.
When he was seventeen years old, J.M. Keynes wrote a
provocative essay, "The Differences between East and West: Will
They Ever Disappear?" Through the examples of the Chinese and the
Jews, the young Keynes tried to discover whether the European and
Oriental branches of human race would continue to live side by side
or whether eventually one would succeed in absorbing the other.
Jews were, in his teen view, the accursed race..."they have in them
deep-rooted instincts that are antagonistic and therefore repulsive to
the European, and their presence among us is a living example of the
insurmountable difficulties that exist in merging race characteristics,
in making cats love dogs" 64 Chandavarkar acknowledged that as an
adult Keynes never outgrew his teen perception of the Jew. J.M.
Keynes held even more radical views about the Chinese. He
condemned the attempt to transform the Chinese into "a race of
tigers" as a futile effort; he added that Europeans could hope nothing
less than a second flood that would exterminate them.65
The following is an example of one of Keynes` frequently
cited utterances about which historians are particularly uneasy as
they indicate anti-Semitism as a part of Keynes' worldview. Upon
meeting Einstein, Keynes reflected his impression as follows:
He is a naughty Jew boy covered with ink –that kind of
Jew – the kind which has its head above water, the
sweet, tender imps who have not sublimated immortality
into compound interest. He was the nicest, and the only
talented person I saw in all Berlin, except perhaps old
Fuerstenberg, the banker Lydia liked so much, and Kurt
Singer, two foot by five, the mystical economist from
Hamburg. And he was a Jew; and so was Fuerstenberg
and so was Singer. And my dear Melchior is Jew too.
Yet if I lived there, I felt I might turn anti-Semite. For
the poor Prussian is too slow and heavy on his legs for
the other kind of Jews, the ones who are not imps but
serving devils, with small horns, pitch forks, and oily
tails. It is not agreeable to see civilization so under the
ugly thumbs of its impure Jews who have all the money
and the power and brains. I vote rather for the plump
hausfraus and think fingered Wandering Birds. But I am
not sure that I wouldn't even rather be mixed up with
Lloyd George than with the German political Jews.66
Three layers stand out from this particular Keynes' utterance: a)
Keynes' anti-Semitism is articulated through his distaste for the
acquisitive elements of society, which he ascribes to Jews as a part of
their national stereotype; b) the notion of "impure thumbs" of the
"impure Jews" reflects the racial theories of Keynes' era that
permeated him and his contemporaries in different modes of
different intensity; c) finally, his comparison of the Jews to "serving
devils" reflects Keynes' fascination with irrational, dark forces in
society. Hints of dark forces, religion, and magic seem to be a
favorite descriptive element of Keynes in describing an individual in
the context of national stereotyping of the Jews. When Keynes
recognized Melchior`s67 hatred of Russia, he acknowledged that the
Jewish banker was obsessed with the "dark forces." Upon this
revelation Keynes understood that Melchior was - "a strict and
upright moralist, a worshiper of the Tablets of the Law, a Rabbi." 68
Keynes was aware of the categories of modern psychology. His life
time experience demonstrated that reality was not the realm of
reason but rather the world of unpredictable dark and mysterious
forces.69 Keynes was caught by the power of magic, which he
seemed to seek behind any form of the extraordinariness.70

Let us now turn to Keynes' concern with the acquisitive
elements of society. Keynes' concern with the acquisitiveness of
society, so similar to Marx's, is tellingly expressed in his General
Theory: "It was not natural for a population, of whom so few enjoyed
the comforts of life, to accumulate so hugely." 71 It is interesting to
follow Keynes' argument about love of money as a possession as
opposed to money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life.
While the latter in Keynes eyes is a justified love, the former is a
form of 'disgusting morbidity", "a semicriminal and
semipathological propensity which one hands over with a shudder to
the specialists in mental disease." 72 The following comment was
made by Keynes about the French Minister Klotz: "a short, plump,
heavy-mustached Jew..." who "...with a gesture of his hands
indicated to everyone the image of hideous Jew clutching a money
bag..." 73 Jews, in Keynes eyes, are stereotypically associated with a
morbid side of money-love. Minister Klotz, according to Keynes,
was a target of general animosity and was hated because of his
stubborn effort to control German "goold" (French pronunciation of
the word gold –NP) which he obstinately tried to save for the
payment of reparations. Regarding this fact, the derogatory "image
of hideous Jew" emerged in Keynes' description as a reaction to
Klotz's general unpopularity and his unwillingness to come to a
mutual satisfactory agreement about the control of German gold.

Keynes' propensity to slip into anti-Semitism and general
stereotyping seems to be rather selective. The decisive element in his
overall judgment of the targeted personality is the ability of the
individual to attract Keynes' attention through the qualities that stand
out from the mediocre. It is the quality and uniqueness of one's
personality, rather than one's national stereotype that preoccupies
Keynes. Although, it must be admitted that Keynes' amusement in
the shocking and surprising twists in assessment of one's character
could easily refute this claim. We might conclude that an overall
impression plays a role in his propensity to make negative comments
about an individual's nationality. It is interesting that even in the
case of Klotz, who was a target of general animosity and hatred at
the Paris Conference, Keynes' expression of a sympathy for this "
poor man" is reflective of Keynes' other concern for the underdog.
To support the argument about the selectiveness of Keynes' anti-
Semitism, let us turn to Melchior, the Jew who represented the
defeated German government at the Paris conference. Keynes'
depiction of Melchior obviously demonstrates his propensity to
protect the weak, downtrodden, or, as in Melchior`s case, the
defeated individual. Melchior, "the honest animal at bay", "the
honorable animal in pain", "this Jew, for such, though not by
appearance ...upheld dignity of defeat",74 elicited a genuine
sympathy of Keynes. Melchior`s qualities were so powerful that his
portrayal has been seen as the classic description of "the good
German." Keynes feelings for Melchior were articulated by
historians either as a flirtation, platonic in nature, or as love, which
may have influenced him in espousing the German cause then and
later.75 That the Jewish agency of Melchior is marginal in Keynes'
overall impression of this statesman supports the conclusion that
Keynes` anti-Semitism was a matter of contemporary fancy in
stereotyping rather than a sign of political anti-Semitism or
xenophobia. This conclusion stands in line with that of Reder, who
also did not trace any initiation of political or economic proposals of
an anti-Semitic nature to Keynes as opposed to, for example,
Hayek.76   

Keynes' penchant for the pejorative stereotype applied not
only to Jews but to other nationalities and social classes as well.77
His deeply rooted Anglo-centrism spontaneously produced anti-
Americanism.78 His well-known reservations about the new motor
vehicles might well have been associated with his reservation about
Americans.79 Writing to Duncan Grant, he said, "The only really
sympathetic and original thing in America is the niggers, who are
charming".80 His frequent criticism of France seems to be a result of
the political and diplomatic tension of the Paris Peace Conference.
The revenge of France on Defeated Germany was a thorn in the eye
of Keynes. "France demands her bond and her forfeit too – to cut out
Germany's heart and to extract the utmost ducat at the same time;
greed and fear and revenge, overreaching one another, until they end
in a sort of nihilism... "81 At the Inter-Allied Council for War
Purchase and finance, he complained at having to listen to "...vain
mendacious and interminable French hateful Yank twang" 82
Russians were not spared Keynes' merciless comments either. In
Essays in Persuasions, one finds the following derogatory
comments: "...beastliness in the Russian nature..." or "...cruelty and
stupidity of old Russia..." out of which "...nothing could ever
emerge, but that beneath the cruelty and stupidity of New Russia
some speck of the ideal may lie hid...." "Beastliness" was also
ascribed to "avaricious" Jews.83 Keynes opinion about women
expressed in his earlier life when he encountered a series of
homosexual relationships is another example of his merciless
spontaneity, his ability to strike an unaware listener on the spot like a
thunderbolt: " I seem to hate every movement of their [women's]
minds. The minds of men, even when they are ugly and stupid, never
appear to me so repellent." However vilifying nature of this remark,
it is in stark contrast with strong protests against discrimination
against the women in his mature life.84 Apparently, women would fit
in Keynes category of downtrodden underdogs as they seem to
reflect his compassion for the weak. Another contradiction emerges
from his view of politicians. On the one hand, Keynes viewed them
as charlatans who manipulated the public with their propaganda; on
the other hand, he could readily turn into an enthusiastic supporter of
any leader pursuing a policy of which he approved.85

When we put Keynes' derogatory remarks in a dialogue with
his political acts concerning the targeted individuals, a stark contrast
between them emerges. Rather than analyzing Keynes' policy toward
the targeted groups, let us follow the main thesis of this analysis and
focus on his political acts that might possibly compensate for the
burden of his disturbing anti-Semitic remarks, whose nature I have
already partially addressed. Keynes` support of Zionism remains a
theme so far largely unnoticed by historians86 Annand Chandavarkar
was probably the first historian to call attention to this topic. It is
hardly known that Keynes was the only non-Jewish member of a
high-powered advisory committee responsible for preparing a report
on Zionist efforts to establish a national home in Palestine, which
was to be presented in Paris at the Peace Conference in February
1919.87 Keynes` name, however, is not recorded in the standard
histories of Jews and Zionism, despite his active involvement in the
committee. Whether this might have been a consequence of Keynes`
spontaneous outbursts of anti-Jewish remarks remains a question to
be answered. Nonetheless, this effort was again completely
congruent with Keynes' compassion for underdogs. On the side,
Keynes pro-Zionist activity must have posed an acute dilemma as
Edwin Montagu, one of Keynes` dearest benefactors, was the fiercest
opponent of Zionism. In the course of events, Keynes' views turned
to be more reserved as he became aware of the political costs of
Zionism. Later during the persecution of Jews in Germany in 1930s,
Keynes decisively stood on the side of the Jews. The letter written to
Professor Spiethoff, who was arranging the publication of a German
translation of "National Sufficiency," supports this claim:
Forgive me for my word about barbarism. But the word
rightly indicates the effect of recent events in Germany
on all of us here... It is many generations in our
judgment since such disgraceful events have occurred in
any country pretending to call itself civilized...If you tell
me that these events have taken place, not by force but
as an expression of the general will ...that in our view
would make some of the persecutions and outrages of
which we hear...ten times more horrible.88

Keynes even suggested making an offer to Germany to make
organized arrangements for all German and Austrian Jews who
wished to emigrate and be naturalized elsewhere.89 He readily
intervened in favor of interned Jewish economists. According to
editors of The Collected Writings, Keynes was one of the most active
in succoring the Jewish refugees.

There is a certain validity in Reder`s claim that the anti-
Semitism of educated people is a product of their more delicate
sensibilities.90 Keynes` formative years as an intellectual at Eton and
Cambridge, the impact of the Bloomsbury intellectual circle, and
finally, his participation on the stage of high politics constituted the
extrinsic stream which readily projected the societal prejudice and
specific images of the Jew upon Keynes. Keynes himself in his Two
Memoirs acknowledged "rationalism and cynicism" as a two
qualities of the Cambridge intellectual milieu.91 Furthermore, Keynes
was undoubtedly a ferocious reader. It is not surprising that
voluminous readings could have presented theories that either hinted
at, or were expressive of, anti-Semitic or racist ideology. For
example, it is known that Keynes did much reading of "superb
Hume" who, besides his great philosophical contribution, compared
the intelligence of "the Negro" to that of a parrot. Scientific racism
was well rooted in the great works of the intellectual elite.92 Living a
life in high gear and being constantly overworked and buried by
projects are the factors that rarely allowed Keynes to pull the breaks.
The same hectic process was typical of his way of thinking and of
judging others. Rarely there was a time for a deeper contemplation
before the final, often striking judgment. Keynes` judgments were
spontaneous, not necessarily rational and not at all tactful. It seems
as if in Keynes` world the moment of the birth of the thought was the
unique and perfect moment for its articulation regardless of what
impact or damage it could eventually produce. Johnson & Johnson
recognize that Keynes' reactions to events were immediate.
Similarly, Chandavarkar noted Keynes' art of "brisk epigrammatic
evaluations of men and matters."93 Keynes himself held the view that
"words ought to be a little wild – for they are the assault of thoughts
upon unthinking."94 Some scholars ascribe the 'brittleness' of his
conversations to neurotic condition as a result of his emotionally
charged life and involvement in the world of high politics and
frenzied economic markets. Piero Mini describes individuals
suffering from neurotic condition as emotionally susceptible,
'cranky', earnest and quick to recognize an injustice. He calls
Keynes an "existentialist man" whose extreme sensitivity in
combination with "superior cold intelligence" made him into a
"nervous wreck."95 Clearly, the dualism of emotional susceptibility
and intelligence made Keynes a master of words, who was perfectly
aware of their subtlest meanings and overtones. Almost like a
professional photographer, he could freeze a figure in a single
snapshot with a hint of humor, satire, fantasy, mockery or mystery.96

As we can see, Keynes expressed respect for people who
managed to succeed regardless of their national or social
background. But it was not so much success as the ability to
command respect that overcame Keynes' prejudices and propensity
to stereotype. Keynes never referred, at least publicly, to Abrahams
(financial secretary and later under secretary of state for India) and
Montagu (the secretary of state for India also played a decisive role
in advancing the public career of Keynes) as Jewish. Both of them
were his mentors. Reading, who contributed to the clarification and
development of Keynes ideas on the complexities of Indian finance,
and Edwin Montagu was another Jewish friend whom Keynes
"immensely liked."97 What conclusion can we draw from the above
mentioned analysis in the face of existing debates?
Conclusion

Reder rejects Skidelsky`s theory that Keynes' anti-Semitism was
"little more than a theological fancy, the expression, perhaps of some
unresolved conflict about his own nonconformist roots".98 In Reder`s
view Keynes' anti-Semitism was definitely more than just a
theological fancy as Keynes characterized Jews to be Nazis or
Communists at heart.99 He concludes that Keynes was well aware of
his own anti-Semitism and felt no urgency to reconcile it with his
feelings for his Jewish friends. In his view, stereotyping does not
necessarily express disesteem of the Jewish individual and did not
prevent relationships between Christians and Jews. We can support
this claim by the example of such a relationship in the Bloomsbury
group. Virginia Woolf married to Leonard Woolf, who was Jewish,
often made anti-Semitic remarks in the presence of her husband and
other Jewish members. Reder interprets this reconciliation of
pervasive anti-Semitism and close Christian-Jew relationship as a
manifestation of a class-oriented attitude toward personal
relationships in general.100 All in all, Reder`s interpretation seems to
be somewhat more critical than Chandavarkar`s perception of
Keynes` anti-Semitism as "a peripheral fringe of an inherently
compassionate personality101 or Berlin`s interpretation of "club anti-
Semitism" which "is not a deep, acute hostility to Jews."102 We can
dismiss the religious undertone of Keynes' anti-Semitism as Keynes
interest in religion was merely intellectual and Keynes himself
"passed painlessly into a natural state of agnosticism."103

According to Barry A. Kosmin, one of the fallacies of our
time is the view that educated people are inherently less prejudiced
than the uneducated: "Conventional wisdom holds that prejudice
equals ignorance and therefore can be fought – and ultimately
eradicated- through education. More education begets more
enlightenment."104 The "balanced and mentally healthy scholar" as
opposed to "the frustrated, inarticulate alienated and angry
simpleton" is, in his view, a historical construct stemming from a
class prejudice. Keynes, a great intellectual mind of his time, carried
the burden of the prejudice of his era. Although Keynes' anti-Semitic
undertones seem to be a mode of attracting the attention of listeners
through derogatory remarks, usually these undertones accompany the
way to ridicule and embarrass those with a great deal of power and
influence who either failed to impress Keynes or were potential
rivals. Such a propensity to stereotype could be located in the milieu
of Keynes' interpersonal battleground where he ruthlessly challenges
the opponent with variability of nuances of either praise or
defamation. We have to keep in mind that stereotyping was a
common and pervasive contemporary feature. As a consequence of
tumultuous fight for civil rights in the 20th century, modern society
is more sensitive and cautious about stereotyping. Still, in regard to
anti-Semitism, historians tend to treat even the slightest hints against
Jews as anti-Semitic and fail to recognize their various differences
and nuances. Skidelsky`s conclusion that Keynes' behavior carried a
certain subversive quality which makes us think him more radical
than he really was explains the essence of Keynes' charisma:
"Keynes always tried to bring unformed thoughts to life, and not to
kill them by pointing out mistakes."105 Chandavarkar drew the
"baffling asymmetry" between Keynes' better-known private anti-
Semitism and his almost unknown public philosemitism. Yet, it has
been demonstrated above that even labeling Keynes an "anti-Semite
in private" can spur disagreements between scholars if one fails to
question the meaning of anti-Semitism of Keynes milieu which
naturally displayed the different range of signifieds106 than anti-
Semitism as understood by late twentieth or early twenty first
century audiences. It can be concluded that Keynes uncritically
reproduced the anti-Semitic clichés and even embellished them with
additional layers of abstract, irrational or even mystical rhetorical
twists. Yet, these utterances were usually a byproduct of specific
situational tensions: professional rivalry and effort to claim respect
and prestige among international elite. Keynes simply appropriated
anti-Semitic clichés as a one facet of modus operandi in political
circles. However, seeing himself as being "immoral," i.e. critical of
generally accepted norms of his time, he naturally stood out as the
defender of those that the society put down - hence his public
philosemitism and sympathy for women's movement. Offering a
new "lesson" based on the Keynes case seems to be pointless.
Rather, getting rid of the layers of dust over the old one seems to be
more relevant: it is "the lesson" about the necessity to question the
meaning of those terms that in the course of decades successfully
acquired the form of unquestioned self-sustaining "truth-s."

106 Ferdinand de Saussure identified the linguistic sign as a two-sided
identity – so called "dyad" which consists of the "signifier" (material aspect
of the sign) and the "signified" ( mental concept). The signified represent
an indelible part of the signifier. See more in Paul Cobley, Litza Jansz,
Introducing Semiotics ( UK, Icon Books, Ltd, 2004), 8 -18.

http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/in ... /1591/1117

[Michael K.]

Jews.  They get to be sublimated in their own writings to the extent of being a veritable natural "element" in any society, axiomatic and self-existent.  Whereas all other individuals in that society do not have such automatic membership, but are always held up to examination for alleged antisocial (anti-Semitic, same dif.) attitudes.

This whole essay makes me like Keynes a good deal more.  In a way I think that his genius has been misquoted by scammers:  he said to expand credit in response to deflation and tighten credit in response to inflation; and this has become the justification for supply-side economics where the answer to every political crisis is even more usury credit to them that don't need it to begin with.  Citing Keynes as a justification the whole time.

Keynes characterized Jews to be Nazis or Communists at heart...Keynes was well aware of his own anti-Semitism and felt no urgency to reconcile it with his feelings for his Jewish friends. In his view, stereotyping does not necessarily express disesteem of the Jewish individual and did not prevent relationships between Christians and Jews.

Agreed.  My type of anti-Semite.