Keynes, Sánchez's Father-in-Law, and the Web of Blackmail

Keynes, Sánchez's Father-in-Law, and the Web of Blackmail

The private life of John Maynard Keynes was as intense as his economic work. Between 1901 and 1918, the British economist maintained an exhaustive record of his sensual encounters with over 200 men, cataloging each name, description, and location with the precision of an archivist. This facet, unknown to the general public, has now resurfaced in a context unrelated to economic theory, but rather to espionage and political blackmail.

Ferguson's Critique and the Short-Term Theory

in a conference before 500 investors in Carlsbad (California), historian Niall Ferguson launched a fierce critique against Keynes. His argument: Keynesian theories only work in the short term and disregard consequences for future generations. But he went further by stating that Keynes was carelessly neglecting the long term because, being gai, he had no descendants, labeling him a 'degenerate' with an egocentric view of the world.

The controversy is not new. Keynes critics have always pointed out that his prescription of public spending and state intervention ignores fiscal sustainability. But Ferguson's personal drift turns the economic debate into an ad hominem attack, a slippery ground where private life is used as a weapon to discredit a theory.

Sánchez's Father-in-Law and the Sauna Operation

Parallel to this, the thread connects Keynes's life with a murky episode in Spanish politics. According to information published by Periodista Digital and gathered during the debate, Pedro Sánchez’s father-in-law was allegedly the owner of a sauna in Madrid where recording devices were installed. The operation, attributed to the Central Operational Support Unit (UCAO) and Commissioner García Castaño, reportedly had the owner's approval.

The account, coming from «El Rellenito», Commissioner Villarejo’s right-hand man, describes an operation without judicial control to obtain information about the intimate lives of relevant figures. The purpose: blackmail. It allegedly involved locating individuals with 'embarrassing' matters to control them and, when necessary, compel them to approve decisions contrary to the law.

The Mechanics of Blackmail in Power

The logic is perverse but simple. Whoever has something to hide can be controlled. The debate suggests that this practice is not a recent invention, but a historical constant. It cites the case of Hungarian MEP József Szájer, hunted in an orgy in Brussels during the pandemic, who resigned claiming that political activity was causing him problems. Froilán de Borbón is also mentioned, evicted from an illegal sauna where there were minors and pink cocaine.

The conclusion that emerges is that personal vulnerability becomes political currency. The debate goes further: if this bomb hasn't exploded before, it is due to the mutual antiestéticar that videos might surface. A balance of terror where everyone has something to lose.

Double Sarracena and Degeneration

The thread drifts toward a philosophical reflection on human duality. Plutarcco, Confucius, Cervantes, or Seneca are cited to illustrate that 'he who has many vices has many masters.' The central idea: virtue and vice are not separate compartments. Whoever is vicious in one area is so in all. And whoever is honest, too.

The reference to Keynes is not accidental. It is suggested that the economist, with his promiscuous life and alleged disregard for the long term, embodies a certain degeneration that transfers to his theories. But it is also noted that the problem is not sensual orientation, but the possibility of being blackmailed because of it. In this sense, the debate recalls that Hitler prevented gais from reaching positions of responsibility due to how easily their secrets could be extracted and they blackmailed.

The Striking Fact

While the debate becomes entangled between Keynes, Sánchez's father-in-law, and Madrid saunas, an uncomfortable question emerges: if blackmail is the usual tool of power, how many political decisions have been made not out of conviction, but out of antiestéticar that a compromising video might surface? The thread suggests that the answer could explain many things that otherwise seem inexplicable. Rajoy's flight, the motion of censure, financial engineering to debt countries... Everything could have a darker explanation than the official one. And meanwhile, Keynes's life remains there, in his diary, as a reminder that history is never as clean as it is told.