Phil Magness Profile picture
Feb 7, 2022 21 tweets 7 min read Read on X
🧵Thread:

John Maynard Keynes is well known for his advisory role in the British government on economic matters, including during WWII.

Far less known is that Keynes - like many British intellectuals - had a decade-long political flirtation with fascism prior to the war.
Our story starts in 1926 when Keynes wrote one of his most famous essays, 'The End of Laissez Faire.' Close readers of this essay are also familiar with a notorious passage where Keynes endorses eugenics as a basis for population management.
Much less known though - the origin of 'The End of Laissez Faire' was actually a lecture that Keynes delivered in 1926 at the University of Berlin.
The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises was in attendance at Keynes's lecture - and blasted him for it in print. The reason? Keynes's arguments gave comfort to German immigration restrictionists who were eyeing eastern Europe as a source of their problems...which is to say Nazis.
Shortly after its publication, Keynes's 'End of Laissez Faire' was explicitly integrated into early fascist political doctrine. This is from the 'Universal Aspects of Fascism' (1928) - one of the first English-language books on fascist theory.
'The Universal Aspects of Fascism' wasn't just any book though. It was written by James Strachey Barnes - a former student of Keynes himself. By 1928, Barnes was a close personal confidant of Keynes and member of the famous Bloomsbury Group of left-leaning intellectuals.
Barnes's book had another unusual distinction. It's preface was personally written by Benito Mussolini.
So what did Keynes think of this emerging fascist movement, and its embrace of his economic philosophy? It's hard to say as he was coy about his own politics. But for at least a while, he unmistakably flirted with nascent fascism in the UK.
The first public sign was this editorial that he wrote about Sir Oswald Mosley, a British MP who wrote a manifesto in 1930 seeking to realign the British political system. Keynes questioned the viability of the memo, but was keen on its economic doctrines as per the 2nd paragraph
After Mosley published his manifesto, he tried to launch a new political party drawing on disaffected members of the existing parties in Parliament. It was called the New Party, and is mainly known today for what it morphed into: the British Union of Fascists.
Indeed, Mosley actively sought after Keynes to be the main economic theorist of the New Party. This is recorded in Harold Nicolson's diary following a conversation with "Tom" Mosley - a nickname used by Oswald's friends.
So what was Keynes's take on Mosley's New Party? It turns out that he was intimately involved behind the scenes in crafting its economic doctrines. Nicolson's diary records several meetings where he dined with Keynes to hammer out these details, starting in 1931.
Keynes's private opinions on Mosley's project are revealed to have been very favorable to the concept, although skeptical to the chances of political success. Here is Nicolson's record of a dinner between him, Keynes, and Mosley.
The collaboration continued until at least early 1932, when Mosley was sending ever-more overt fascist signals.
But note who else is also there: Jim Barnes, aka James Strachey Barnes - author of the book noted above that united fascist theory with Keynes's 'End of Laissez Faire'
Keynes was undoubtedly aware of Barnes's book - published in 1928 - by the time of these meetings in 1931-32. In fact, Barnes' own memoirs fondly recall his friend and mentor as a central figure of the Bloomsbury circle.
Keynes appears to have soured on Mosley's project in 1933 or 34, although the details are unclear. To his credit, he likely objected as the New Party morphed into a more overtly fascist and politically active organization.
But Keynes also continued to flirt with fascist politics in other ways. For example, see his infamous introduction to the German-language edition of the 'General Theory,' written in 1936.
A few more addenda:

First is a passage that Keynes wrote in his notes after returning from Germany in 1926. Keynes's anti-semitism is known, but this should be read in context of the Berlin lecture as well.
Second, here's the letter that Keynes wrote to Margaret Sanger in 1936 affirming his support for eugenics, and a belief that the birth control movement should shift away from overpopulation and toward eugenic theory.
Keynes fortunately recognized the problems with Nazism at the outset of WWII, and threw his support fully behind the allies.

But the documents above show that he had more than a few intersections with fascist ideology on both economic and racial issues between 1926-36.
Keep that in mind the next time you see someone trying to imply that Mises was a fascist sympathizer (because of a single out-of-context quote), or that Friedman "collaborated" with Pinochet by telling him not to destroy his monetary base.

Keynes's fascist skeletons dwarf both.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Phil Magness

Phil Magness Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PhilWMagness

May 12
🧵The Trump admin's defense of Section 122 tariffs has a huge legal obstacle that almost nobody has noticed thus far.

It comes from an obscure provision of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I'll explain below.
Let's start with Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This is the provision that Trump used to reinstate a 10% across the board tariff after SCOTUS struck down his IEEPA tariffs in February.

The US Court of International Trade ruled against Trump on Thursday. He has appealed.
At issue with Section 122 is the meaning of "Balance of Payments deficits," which must exist before the president can impose tariffs through this law.

Historically, a BoP deficit meant a drawdown on the country's official monetary reserves under the Bretton Woods exchange system
Read 12 tweets
Apr 25
1. There are very few libertarian/classical liberal hubs in academia.

2. Those that exist are under a barrage of Nancy MacLean-style attacks from the far left.

3. Pecknold has never experienced that, nor has he done anything to move the campus needle rightward in his own career Image
I speak on this from experience, btw. I was in the trenches fighting the AAUP, the Unkoch mvmt, MacLean etc. for a decade.

Also, I assembled the original version of the faculty ideology chart Pecknold shared above as part of my research on higher ed bias. I published it in my book w Jason Brennan, and in several subsequent journal articles and popular outlets.

Pecknold was AWOL from that fight and a complete nonentity in the scholarly debate around it.Image
Among my many battles with the academic left over the years:

- I was one of the first to expose statistical malfeasance in Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century," the bible of the Occupy Wall Street movement

- I caught Piketty's co-author Gabriel Zucman red-handed in manipulating tax statistics to advance false claims about the wealthy paying lower tax rates than the poor, and likely cost him a job at Harvard as a result

- I caught Harvard's Naomi Oreskes peddling false data claims political ideology in the national media to downplay the leftwing bias on the faculty

- I demolished Duke professor Nancy MacLean's "Democracy in Chains," the National Book Award-finalist that was the centerpiece of the academic left's crusade to purge free market economics from campus in the late 2010s.

- I was one of the first people to call attention to the failure of Neil Ferguson's Imperial College model during Covid, showing that its predictions about Sweden in the absence of lockdowns were not coming true

- I discovered a basic math error in one of the most heavily cited pro-mask modeling studies during Covid, completely undermining its claims. I published that revelation in the Wall Street Journal

- I discovered and broke the story about the now-infamous FOIA'd "devastating takedown" email order from Francis Collins to Anthony Fauci during Covid

- I dismantled the economic sections of the New York Times's 1619 Project, and broke the story about how the newspaper made ghost-edits to Nikole Hannah Jones's claims on the American Revolution by altering their text on their website

- I caught star left wing Princeton historian Kevin Kruse engaging in plagiarism in his dissertation and several of his other academic works

- I helped to expose Claudine Gay at Harvard for plagiarism, both as one of the only experts who was willing to go on record in the early days of the story after Chris Rufo and Aaron Sibarium simultaneously broke the news, and then by found more examples of it myself in Gay's other academic papers

And those are just a few of the major ones, going back over a decade.
Read 9 tweets
Apr 24
Time for a history lesson.

In the founding era, a 10 miles square block was seen as sufficiently large space for a capital that could encompass the whole of the federal government's operations. This was done out of a concern that the federal government's presence in any one state would exert undo influence upon that state's own government, and also become unduly influenced by the host state's political establishment. Both problems were very real and tangible issues in the 1780s-90s when the capital was located in Philadelphia, New York, and briefly in a few other locations. The decision to create a new and completely distinct federal district was a direct response to that problem.

Originally, 100 square miles was more than sufficient to contain the operations of the federal government and keep them relatively buffered from the neighboring states. Unfortunately, the federal government eventually outgrew the District. Part of that happened in 1846 when, at the behest of slaveowners, Congress reverted the Arlington side to Virginia (recall that Arlington Cemetery was formerly the site of a large plantation belonging to Robert E. Lee's wife). The measure was controversial at the time. Former president John Quincy Adams, then serving in Congress, thought that the retrocession was blatantly unconstitutional and hoped that it would be challenged at some point in the Supreme Court (a challenge was attempted in the 1870s, but the Court punted on the issue of retrocession and settled the case on technicalities that avoided weighing in on its constitutionality).

Retrocession had immediate consequences for the capital, because it took away a geographic buffer around the city that had thus far insulated it from the politics of the two surrounding states. Abraham Lincoln called attention to this problem during the Civil War because it also made the capital less-defensible from military attack. In 1861 he explicitly asked Congress to repeal the 1846 retrocession and return Arlington to the District. Congress never acted on his request though, as the battle lines of the war soon shifted away from the capital (in 1861-62 when Lincoln's request was pending, they came within a few miles west of the city, with major battles in Manassas, Virginia). Lincoln also hoped to bring Arlington back into the District because he was working on a bill to abolish slavery inside the capital's boundaries and that would have freed the slaves on the Custis-Lee plantation and other neighboring Virginia estates (he signed it in April 1862).

After the Civil War, the federal government continued to grow until it eventually ran out of space in the now-shrunken District. In 1909 President Taft recognized this problem on the horizon, and tried to unretrocede Arlington as expansion space for federal offices and federal parkland. He made it a major goal for his second term after the 1912 election, but lost the race.

The federal government grew rapidly in the following years, particularly during World War I. The War Department outgrew its office buildings and had to erect temporary structures along the present-day national mall, which were still there at the start of World War 2. They had planned to move into a new permanent structure in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood but it was too small upon completion (the State Department now occupies that building).

DC effectively ran out of room sometime in the WW2 period and outgrew its residual boundaries on the former Maryland side. The construction of the Pentagon in 1941 became the solution, as well as a major milestone that set the precedent for "core" federal departments spilling out beyond the boundaries of the district. Congress was concerned about this effect at the time as it placed essential federal functions in the jurisdiction of neighboring states. During the war, they even gave serious consideration to a bill from Sen. Pat McCarran that would have reverted Arlington to the District in conjunction with the War Department's relocation to the Pentagon. Much like Lincoln's efforts during the Civil War, the McCarran bill withered after the end of World War 2 because it was no longer seen as a pressing issue.

But the Pentagon move set the precedent, and in the decades that followed dozens of other departments started to spill over into Virginia and into neighboring Maryland.

We've now reached the point in both states that the federal government's presence exerts a controlling influence on their respective state governments - or precisely the scenario that the founders aimed to avoid in 1789-91 when they created the 10 miles square federal District of Columbia. The DC suburbs are now the tail that wags the dog in Annapolis and Richmond, such that the politics of both states are largely subservient to federal government interests and people living hundreds of miles away from DC are now governed by the political preferences of those living inside the DC beltway.
One other twist of the story:

Prior to the 1960s, most state legislatures followed the design of the US Congress in how they allocated their districts. The state House seats were divided by population according to the census, but state Senate seats were divided by geography to represent different regions of the state (yes, both were susceptible to being gerrymandered, but the idea was to have different political subdivisions in each chamber so that no faction or region gained a controlling monopoly on the state government). We know that this split design was the intention of the founders, because they implemented it and even based the Constitution's House/Senate distinction on older state-level versions of the same system.

In the 1960s though, the Warren Supreme Court issued a series of rulings that invalidated all state constitutions that allocated their senate seats by geography. The new court order required apportionment by population, so state senate seats simply became larger versions of state house seat. Virginia was one of the most heavily affected states, because the populous DC suburbs gained the most in state senate representation. In the decades that followed, that shifted the entire political locus of the state to the DC Beltway. And now it is the tail that wags the dog for the entire state.
Could the situation be addressed today? Partially. Compromises are uncommon in our garbage DC political climate due to bad behavior of both parties. If sanity ever returns though, I'd suggest this "deal" as a way to bring the federal district's purposes closer to the founders intentions while also offering a fair solution to those in the affected regions.

1. Repeal the 1846 Retrocession, which would place Arlington and the core of Alexandria back within the original boundaries of the District. This would not completely solve the problem of federal offices that have spilled over beyond the original 10 miles sq. boundaries and into VA and MD, but it would address the heaviest concentration of them, which is Arlington County.

2. Begin a gradual long term process of moving other core federal offices back into the district where possible. Utilize empty federal office space downtown when it becomes available, and shutter federal offices in the MD and VA suburbs when they become obsolete or in need of renovation.

3. To make the deal more politically palatable, the reconstituted square District should be given a voting member of the House of Representatives, commensurate with its population. This would probably require a constitutional amendment, which would be part of the deal (i.e. supporters of the retrocession agree to the amendment in exchange). But it would solve the disenfranchisement issue, and it could be implemented by simply adding 1-2 new members to the House (which can be done by legislation).
Read 4 tweets
Apr 21
🧵Yesterday, a Vance-aligned group called the Bull Moose Project posted this viral picture of an old farmhouse on sprawling acreage, purporting to illustrate how once-common rural housing became unaffordable in the United States.

I did some digging into the photo... Image
It turns out that there are lots of pictures of this house online...because it isn't a historic farmhouse. It's a modern design of a house intended to look like a historic farmhouse. Image
That website sells architectural plans. The house is one of their model designs. So it isn't even a representative dwelling from an American past that we purportedly lost. The same site says they designed it in...

2008. Image
Read 8 tweets
Apr 11
Oh my. Pilkington is mad at me over my article on the Orban government's subsidization of careers for postliberal activists.

What he doesn't mention: he is employed by the Orban government and depends on that same goulash train for income. Image
Link to the full article:

theargumentmag.com/p/god-orban-an…
Also going to save this for when the American Postliberals (and their Budapest auxiliary) inevitably try to construct a new genealogy for themselves by latching onto older movements that also share the postliberal label by coincidence. Image
Read 4 tweets
Feb 12
"The rise in anti-Semitism on the right is attributable to a handful of individuals whom Hazony is too cowardly and embarrassed to condemn. Like a vengeful alcoholic at an intervention, he is lashing out and blaming everyone but himself for the wreckage he helped create" commentary.org/articles/james…
Also note: the picture of Hazony in the banner image is from him speaking at an event cosponsored by MCC, aka Viktor Orban University.
I first encountered Hazony ca. 2018 at a dinner sponsored by ISI where he gave a talk on his book. His lecture was vapid nationalist slop that made multiple egregiously erroneous claims about American history and political philosophy.

I remember sitting there shocked that anyone could find this guy even remotely convincing - not because the message was bad (and it was) but because his arguments betrayed utter incompetence with the subject matter. I was not the only one who thought so either. Most of the others at my table were rolling their eyes at him, and whispering about his mistakes in the speech.

When Q&A opened up, I started to raise my hand to push back on some of his claims. George Gilder, who was sitting right behind me, raised his hand at the same time. They called on Gilder, and he proceeded to make some of the same criticisms of Hazony that were going around my table. Hazony's answer to the challenge amounted to meandering babble and evasion.

I didn't think much else about Hazony after that, until he resurfaced as the leader of this NatCon thing. I was not at all surprised when I read the speaker list, and saw it was an eclectic mix of bigots, cranks, and conspiracy theorists. More surprising though is that Hazony has been pushing the same bigots for the last 6+ years now, all the while feigning "shock" that they spew bigotry whenever it spills into public view...and then turning around the next day and inviting the very same bigots back to his conferences.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(