Rob,

I will make one more attempt to right this, and then let it go.
Here is the 1938 quote, where Keynes is bemoaning earlier naivete:

"We repudiated all versions of the doctrine of original sin, of there being
insane and irrational springs of wickedness in most men.  We were not aware
that civilization was a thin and precarious crust erected by the personality
and the will of a very few, and only maintained by rules and conventions
skilfully put across and guilefully preserved.  We had no respect for
traditional wisdom or the restraints of custom.  We lacked reverence, as
Lawrence observed and as Ludwig with justice also used to say -- for everything
and everyone."

Your latest post backs off a little bit.  You now say,
"Keynes endorsed guile which is by definition “deceit” (OED).
To that extent Keynes promoted dishonesty".  We can of course
rhetorically use "to that extent" to propose almost any misleading
interpretation.  E.g., you are not making any effort to elucidate
the quote, and to that extent you are "promoting" misinterpretation,
and to *that* extent you are "promoting" dishonesty. Is this accurate?
You can see such contortions buy you nothing of use.

Try the following exercise.
1. Tell us if you want civilization to be maintained.
(I will presume an answer of yes.)
2. Now assume Keynes's analysis  is correct: civilization is
"only maintained by rules and conventions skilfully put
across and guilefully preserved".  Really believe it for a moment.
It is not after all just a stupid idea.
3. Do you still want civilization to be maintained?  If so,
should I describe you as "promoting dishonesty"?  Does that
seem a helpful description of what is going on?

As an associated exercise, you might say something about
why Keynes came to believe 2. above.

Here is what Keynes is actually promoting in the above quote:
"civilization" and the "rules and conventions" that maintain it.
A better word for his attitude toward any necessary involvement
of "guile" in this maintenance would be "accepting".  If you
were to rephrase that JMK had an accepting attitude toward guile
when it is necessary to prevent social collapse, then I'd stop
objecting  -- especially if you add as context that of
course any rational person (yourself included) would also be
accepting, if they truly believed it was necessary.  In
fact, in this case, I'd even give you this supportive quote:

"For at least another hundred years we must pretend to
ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is
fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury
and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still.
For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic
necessity into daylight."

But if you persist in your misleading characterization of
what is going on, then I withdraw my offer.

Alan