Rob,
     This will be my last post on this thread.   I shall make two points.
     The first  is that I have not engaged in hagiography regarding Keynes.  I was the one who quoted Samuelson commenting on the paper  by Reder that reported that Keynes was more anti-Semitic than either Schumpeter or Hayek, both of whom were also charged to some degree with this, with Hayek reportedly the least so of the three.   If quoting something like that, which some commentators think is a topic that should not even be discussed, is hagiography, then I would like to know how critical one must become to be viewed as well, demonizing somebody.
      The other is that I have done some checking, and I think that at a minimum you are wildly exaggerating the disagreements and conflicts between Russell and Wittgenstein.  As Alan reported, Russell did say some extremely complimentary things about Wittgenstein, although apparently there was hostility between Popper and Wittgenstein.  Maybe during the 20s there was some hostility, but after Frank Ramsey invited Wittgenstein back to Cambridge in 1929, who was met at the station by Keynes, it was Russell with Moore who examined him for his PhD, accepting his Tractatus as his thesis.  I read an account of them slapping each other on the back in 1929, in a friendly way,  It would appear also that Russell supported Wittgenstein's appointment at Cambridge.
      I would suggest that if you wish to continue with this tale of Wittgenstein being awful and hated by Russell (or maybe it was only Wittgenstein hating Russell, who had approved his PhD in 1929), I would suggest you provide some sources.  It appears to me that you are really seriously misrepresenting history here to the point of possibly committing what you have been accusing Keynes of advocating.
Barkley Rosser
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Rob Tye [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2014 7:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Keynes and Honesty

My choice of words has been an attempt to combine accuracy with economy, in
every case.

I am very troubled that you take the current tack, not least because
Wittgenstein himself routinely relied upon aggressively derogatory, and
indeed foul mouthed, verbal attacks.

I should explain that I have in recent years been expelled from six
different discussion groups, typically merely for pointing out that a false
statement was in fact false.  Calling false statements “false” in the 21st
century is rapidly becoming an unpardonable sin.  On one occasion I was
expelled for using the word “incompetent” concerning an opinion of a
particular Professor, despite the fact he himself used words like “nonsense”
freely about others.

Free speech should not be the exclusive prerogative of an influential elite.

You question my use of “lying”.  That was a direct quote from the eminent
Oxford philosopher Collingwood, in a long argument linked ultimately to the
distribution of wealth in society.  As I admitted, I know little of Keynes
(my 3 volume Skidelsky biog is still in the mail).  But Keynes’ very
prominent quote from Hardy in his ‘Essays in Persuasion’ immediately brought
to my mind the sort of Hegelianism that Collingwood espoused

You question my use of “dishonest”.  I assure you I was attempting to make
my point in an accurate and restrained way.  The words Popper used, in 1947,
concerning “trendy philosophers” and included “prophets”, “pedants”, and
“swindlers”.

You support Alan when he writes

AI > You explicitly accused Keynes of promoting dishonesty and adduced a
quote.  I am pointing out that you badly misinterpreted the quote

That is false.  Keynes endorsed guile which is by definition “deceit” (OED).
 To that extent Keynes promoted dishonesty, and it is very disturbing that,
as I recall, four or five different individuals have now rejected that
obvious truth in the current exchange.  Foucault thought truth was merely
the creation of the powerful.  I will not put up with that.

You support Alan when he writes

AI > I am also puzzled by your characterisation of Russell.  Russell of
course considered Wittgenstein a genius:

This is false as a general characterisation.  Very early on (1923 or
earlier) Russell said of Wittgenstein “he is now quite stupid” - in doing so
apparently rejecting important parts of even the (so called) early Wittgenstein.

Of course a lot of what I would clearly identify as anti-Russell
pro-Wittgenstein propaganda derives from the efforts of Russell’s political
and religious opponents.  What I am trying to discover is whether the
foundation stones for that opposition were laid by Keynes.  As I understand
it Russell and Wittgenstein were not on speaking terms for years after 1922
(the animosity from Wittgenstein’s side)  It was Keynes who met Wittgenstein
at the station when his train pulled in 1929.  Keynes who arranged the
Apostles welcome home party for Wittgenstein.  Keynes who subsequently
lobbied for Wittgenstein’s professorship.   On his side Russell was, it
seems to me, plotting Wittgenstein’s downfall with such as Popper.

On my meagre knowledge of Keynes, I offered four comments related to charges
of dishonesty.  I am getting increasingly puzzled that no one seems to know
of any others, and also that I have received so many false charges against
the original offering.

Agassi, correctly I believed, charged writers on Wittgenstein with
hagiographic inclinations.  I am starting to wonder if the same could be
said of contemporary writers on Keynes

Rob Tye, York, UK

PS   The “he is now quite stupid” letter is apparently lost, or missing from
archives, but known from a copy made by the recipient in 1923.