The Reprobate Keynesian Mind


by Don Hank

I recently had a stimulating discussion with a UK pastor regarding the imminent legalization of a radical new definition of marriage, which for 5000 years, in over 600 languages and dialects, has always referred to a union between a man and a woman. True, some cultures have included polygamous marriages in this definition, but still, marriage was never between members of the same sex. The suggestion of such a union had always been regarded as unnatural.

This pastor made a startling assertion: the power in Europe is in the hands of sexual perverts.

The word for reprobate as used by Paul in Romans 1:28 is adókimon (αδόκιμον), which is a composite of a (α) meaning not, or without, and dókimos (δόκιμος), meaning approved or simply proved, and is a derivative of dokimazo (δοκιμάζω), meaning to prove or put to the test.

Now the word could mean, according to the first equivalent, “unapproved.” But according to the second, it would suggest something that had been tested and failed the test.

Paul applies the word to homosexuals, who he says reject the Creator but worship the creation. He says God abandoned them to “reprobate minds.”

Note that a mind that God has allowed to be changed fundamentally from a mind that has passed quality control to a failed (reprobate) mind will fail not only morally but in every other sense, and specifically in the processing of vital data for the conduct of daily activity. Such a mind in control of a national economy could only produce disasters because it would be incapable of foreseeing obvious potentials for economic disasters and a catastrophic breakdown of law and order. This is because common sense is God-given, and when God withdraws this gift (abandoning one to a reprobate, or in other words, failed, mind), then the mind is no longer functional and this failure is allowed by God, or in other words, success is no longer allowed by God. There can be nothing more terrifying!

Now also note that the Western world, including the US and Europe, have long adopted an economic model known as Keynesianism. We are supposed to believe that this model actually succeeded in the FDR administration and enabled us to pull out of a severe depression. A study by a team of economists at UCLA, however, showed that, far from promoting recovery, FDR’s policies delayed the recovery by 7 to 8 years.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

In actual fact, we recovered only because America still had a strong manufacturing base, whereas Europe’s manufacturing was destroyed in the war, providing us with a captive export market. Ask yourself: Do we still have a strong manufacturing base to support a recovery? The Keynesian Richard Nixon promoted and won Most-Favored-Nation status for Mao’s communist China, sealing the doom of American industry.

Japanese experiments with Keynesianism, based on the misrepresented FDR model, failed.

America and Europe have tried Keynesian ‘stimulus’ as well, with the result that the job situation is still poor, growth is almost at a standstill, inflation is our most abundant export and the euro zone is failing dismally. Economic failure is accompanied, predictably, with a breakdown of law. Ask any Cypriot. Or look at the gangs of illegal immigrants terrorizing American cities.

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/tedbiondo/2011/09/12/where-in-the-world-is-keynesian-economics-working/

But who was Keynes, the mastermind of this economic model that has failed consistently?

Well, according to Paul’s definition, John Maynard Keynes was a prime example of a reprobate mind.

If you have the stomach, you may read this chapter of “Keynes at Harvard” to see why Paul would call him morally reprobate:

http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html

If you have the time, you may read the whole book:

http://www.keynesatharvard.org/

The economic debacle in the US and Europe is a direct result of putting power in the hands of reprobate minds—minds that can do nothing but fail.

Paul says God guarantees failure. Look around you. Look at the cost of staples today, compared with last year.

Can anyone argue with that?

If you have the stomach, you may read this chapter of “Keynes at Harvard” to see why Paul would call him morally reprobate:

http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html

If you have the time, you may read the whole book:

http://www.keynesatharvard.org/

The economic debacle in the US and Europe is a direct result of putting power in the hands of reprobate minds—minds that can do nothing but fail.

Paul says God guarantees failure. Look around you. Look at the cost of staples today, compared with last year.

Can anyone argue that our power structure is in the hands of people with reprobate minds?

About these ads

14 responses to “The Reprobate Keynesian Mind

  1. The article seems ot repeat itself. I will try to edit it so everything only appears once.

  2. Good idea. Mrs Halcombe is often more enthusiastic than accurate.

  3. Website referred to does not load.

  4. I can see them, both.

  5. Hanks’ arguments don’t hold water. Romans 1, 26 – 28 does not refer to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who participate in homosexual acts. Hanks concedes that marriage predates Christianity. Marriage was not invented by Christians. Until fairly recently the institution of marriage in Christian countries regarded the wife as the husband’s property. Hanks’ argument that marriage was never between members of the same sex is facile. Marriage was never between equal partners either, until very recently. The definition of marriage has changed over the course of time. It is not just “some cultures” who have practiced polygamy – it was practiced in the Old Testament . God condoned it and gave instructions on how to do it (2 Sam 12, 11; Deut 21,15) . Paul was an anti-sex and anti-marriage maniac: “It is good to live a celibate life…I wish everyone could get along without marrying, just as I do…If you do not have a wife, do not get married…I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is better to stay unmarried, just as I am…Now, about young women who are not yet married…I think it is best to remain as you are…” (1 Cor ch. 7, NLT) . Don Hanks is a fundamentalist. He worships neither the Creator nor His creation, but a book, the Bible, which he nevertheless misreads. He is a Bibliolator.

    Paul Rowlandson

    Sent from my iPad

    • I agree with Paul. I’ve said repeatedly that, while I don’t trust the details of the proposed new law, I see no objection whatever to gay marriage.

  6. The point of the article, and the attached links, is to show how a small group of people can change political structures, which have enormous effects on the lives of ordinary people.
    These people, then and now, see themselves in the vanguard of change.
    The article makes reference to the wealth of the people involved and how this inherited wealth enabled them to travel and concentrate on their intellectual activities. It also highlights how they helped each other to gain influence.
    In the modern world the state supports groups like this in the higher education establishments and the BBC. Instead of living off inherited wealth they feed off the tax payer.
    What the article is also saying is the beliefs and structures put in place and supported by those beliefs have and continue to cause great harm to people and countries.
    We have to recognise Keynes and company were wrong in their day and are still wrong today.

  7. Nick diPerna

    The economy is nearing an apocalypse, the culture is Balkanising, but gay marriage is by far the most important issue at the moment. :-)

  8. Nick diPerna

    Ron1954. Strange how these new ‘ruling classes’ (or arbiters of conventional wisdom) see no shame in feeding off the taxpayer…

    Notice also how during a major depression taxpayer-funded institutions like the Arts Council can still throw millions around at vanity projects whilst keeping staff on the payroll who don’t even work for them anymore.

  9. Nick, They feel no shame because they hold the majority of people in contempt and feel it is their right to feed off them, just like a shark kills and eats what is in front of it.

  10. To a Christian (as to a Jew) there is no such species as “homosexuals” – there are only human beings who engage in certain sexual acts that the religion (and some secular philosophies) hold to be wrong.

    As for Keynes – F.A. Hayek tried to explain his lack of concern (indeed utter contept) for the long term, in various ways. However, when Hayek found out that Keynes was what the modern world calls a “homosexual”, he held that to be sufficient reason for Keynes’ lack of concern with the long term (I suppose this makes Hayek a “homophobe”).

    Personally I disagree -as I can think of people who prefer homosexual to hetrosexual intercourse who are very concerned with the long term (even though they will not have children who will see it).

    As for the sexual fantasy life of Lord Keynes…….

    It is true that he went on about his desire to rape young males, but (as far as I know – I have not clicked on the link) there is no evidence that he actually did so.

    To the libertarian there is no such thing as “thought crime”,.

  11. By the way, I have been told that (traditionally) there is less tolerance for homosexual acts in Austrian culture than there is in German culture – but I do not know whether that is true.

  12. Pingback: Director’s Bulletin, 26th May 2013 | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  13. Pingback: An Update from the Libertarian Alliance « Attack the System