General

Re: Comment on the Mises Institute Facebook Page

Walden — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 06:19:20 GMT

I don't think that I have that attitude.

You only have a few posts here and you've zeroed in and put a lot of effort analyzing an offhand comment about Jews Molyneux made in a blog in 2005. On what criterion do you believe this to be so important?

It's very easy for me to infer that this is because of the very high sensitivity toward criticism of the designated 'minority groups,' as is now so fashionable.

The primary thing is that that mindset is hardly limited to the Jews.

Nowhere does he say it is, in the next sentence he lists other groups where collectivist thinking also exists. I think his overarching theory is that psychoanalysis did not challenge it (although to the extent that collectivism can damage the health of an individual should be of great concern) because collectivism is a normal part of their religion.

Whether this is a result of their Jewish upbringing or outlook is open for debate. I do know that many Jews the world over are educated for an in-group centric view, and this is accepted today, as are all minority displays of pride and in-group behavior.

The other big issue is that you're pointing to Israelis, who live in a relatively dangerous country, rather than Jews in general.

Israel was intentionally set up as a religious/ethnic state to begin with. Zionism is inextricably connected with Judaism. Israel is like their promised land or something.

My cursory knowledge of psychology, especially as it applies to religious beliefs like the afterlife, leads me to believe that being part of a 'chosen people' and other religious myths have a powerful effect on one's psychology and behavior. The wars, migrations and political events through history tells us that religion is very powerful. That religion would not play a part seems to be a much more implausible idea.

Re: Comment on the Mises Institute Facebook Page

Examiner — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 02:46:49 GMT

Daniel Muffinburg:

I remember saying things when I was younger that I would not have said today. I once said that I would vote for Bill Clinton if I was able to and I have never retracted that statement. However, my mind has changed. Perhaps I should go on Facebook and announce that fact.

I'd propose that the question is whether the correction will avoid significant problems. Mr. Molyneux has quite a collection of statements that cause trouble for people. It wouldn't be much of a stretch for this to cause trouble if nonlibertarians hear of him, which is something he tries to make happen, and decided to dig a bit into the interesting-sounding philosophy of the man.

Walden:

Why is Molyneux's "stereotype" incorrect?

The major psychologists at the turn of the 19th century were almost exclusively Jews. To this day 'dissension and disobedience to authority' are considered disorders in the DSM. Let's not belabor this though. Consider that the treatment of Israeli dissentors on the issue of Palestine. (Just google 'israel dissent.') Maybe they'll send the police your house while you get castigated by your local Rabbi or whatever. Why is it this colassal irony is playing out today? Open your eyes, goyim.

Your attitude is designed to shut down discussion of the issue- it does not make into a clear thinker or a moral person, it just means you were well trained in school to react negatively to any criticism directed toward non-whites. In other words, a perfectly healthy specimine.

You may be totally correct, but I can't see it yet from your argument for a few reasons.

The primary thing is that that mindset is hardly limited to the Jews. This may be a valid stereotype but of humans in general, which would make singling out the Jews misleading. It's possible that the reason that dissent was so readily equated with mental illness was because the vast majority, independent of whether Jewish, already thought that ahead of time. The fact that so many of the early psychologists were Jewish might be a mere accident, and it also stands to reason that you might have gotten the same sort of theories from anyone.

The other big issue is that you're pointing to Israelis, who live in a relatively dangerous country, rather than Jews in general. It may be that that is another example of danger inspiring people to attack those who don't adhere to the group. It may be something else. Saying that it's because they're Jews and that this applies, throughout the world, to Jews more than other collectives are two things you've not yet established.

A smaller issue about Mr. Molyneux's argument is that it focuses on psychology when the claim is about their attitudes in general. Similarly, yours focuses on the current DSM, which came far later than the opening of last century, and on dissenters on one particular issue in one country. If the clear evidence ends up to consist only of what happened in a few rather small areas, it would indicate that it is a fluke rather than a general trend. In such a situation, a focus on the few areas where the trend looks best will be convincing and misleading.

To be clear about it, these are all merely hypotheticals that are possible. I don't necessarily hold to any of them. They just show that your argument doesn't address a lot of very possible situations, and so it's not yet a conclusive argument.

As far as my attitude, I don't think that I have that attitude.

Re: Comment on the Mises Institute Facebook Page

Walden — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 02:19:29 GMT

Why is Molyneux's "stereotype" incorrect?

The major psychologists at the turn of the 19th century were almost exclusively Jews. To this day 'dissension and disobedience to authority' are considered disorders in the DSM. Let's not belabor this though. Consider that the treatment of Israeli dissentors on the issue of Palestine. (Just google 'israel dissent.') Maybe they'll send the police your house while you get castigated by your local Rabbi or whatever. Why is it this colassal irony is playing out today? Open your eyes, goyim.

Your attitude is designed to shut down discussion of the issue- it does not make into a clear thinker or a moral person, it just means you were well trained in school to react negatively to any criticism directed toward non-whites. In other words, a perfectly healthy specimine.

Re: Comment on the Mises Institute Facebook Page

DanielMuff — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:03:58 GMT

I remember saying things when I was younger that I would not have said today. I once said that I would vote for Bill Clinton if I was able to and I have never retracted that statement. However, my mind has changed. Perhaps I should go on Facebook and announce that fact.

Re: Comment on the Mises Institute Facebook Page

Examiner — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 15:50:22 GMT

I got those quotes from a discussion entitled "Rothbard on Children (not for the squeamish)" and from the blog post "Are People Just Stupid?", which is worth reading as a whole for all the additional wonders therein, including the comment left.

Re: Comment on the Mises Institute Facebook Page

fegeldolfy — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 07:53:44 GMT

Was it Lew Rockwell?

Re: Comment on the Mises Institute Facebook Page

fegeldolfy — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 03:57:31 GMT

Who wrote that?

Re: Comment on the Mises Institute Facebook Page

Examiner — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 03:43:51 GMT

fegeldolfy:

I know,right? And Rothbard, also a Jew, was an evil neo-nazi who praised Hitler.

Yeah, they're obviously hurling falsities at Austrians, but they're currently just making stuff up. How easy do you think it would be for them to build a convincing, though still false, case based on actual evidence?

Some prominent Mises people (Robert Murphy, Stephan Kinsella, and Jeffrey Tucker) along with lots of other people who are out there advocating Austrian ideas currently associate with and highly praise the thinking of a man who wrote the following without retracting it:

But so what? What’s the problem with shaking things up? Why is it so difficult for people to break out of unhealthy or unproductive relationships?

The answer is, in my view, because mental health has always been defined in social terms – a combination of sustained relationships and productive work. In other words, a popular Auschwitz guard with a long marriage is the very definition of mental health. Moral considerations do not form the basis of mental heath – a compliant Nazi is considered more ‘healthy’ than an outcast one. This form of ‘social ethics’ is largely due to the Jewish influence over psychology. It would be hard for a Jew to say that individual morality is more important than social acceptance, since to be ‘Jewish’ is to automatically place the authority of the group over the conscience of the individual – just as Christians, socialists, Muslims and soldiers do.

The idea, you see, is that Christians and so on might be collectivistic and everything, but it took the Jews (you know, the people with the catchphrase "the only good Nazi is a compliant Nazi!") to ruin a profession millions of people turn to for help.

You too can help the cause of individualism by talking in terms of group stereotypes with full seriousness! In case you think he's just speaking in general themes rather than about every individual in a collective, he also said:

[Rothbard] was almost certainly circumcised as an infant, and so questioning the right of parents to aggress against their children would probably have been emotionally very, very painful.

Re: Comment on the Mises Institute Facebook Page

SkepticalMetal — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 02:34:15 GMT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge#Civil_rights

Re: Comment on the Mises Institute Facebook Page

idol — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 01:56:13 GMT

Source on the Calvin Coolidge claim? That's a fun fact.

Re: Comment on the Mises Institute Facebook Page

SkepticalMetal — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 01:30:41 GMT

Funny thing is that the progressive movement was born in racism. Woodrow Wilson, widely considered to be the big progressive, found The Birth of a Nation to be his favorite movie ever. This is opposed to a small-government libertarian conservative like Calvin Coolidge who was the first President to have black people in positions of power.

Re: Comment on the Mises Institute Facebook Page

fegeldolfy — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 01:10:32 GMT

Re: Comment on the Mises Institute Facebook Page

SkepticalMetal — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 00:47:12 GMT

All you have to do is shout "racist" in response to any argument and that argument is automatically shut down.

Re: Comment on the Mises Institute Facebook Page

Willy Truth — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:37:53 GMT

It's pretty sad that when you google "Lew Rockwell" the second suggestion is "Lew Rockwell Racist".

Re: Comment on the Mises Institute Facebook Page

SkepticalMetal — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:02:28 GMT

I find it interesting that dumb liberals and dumb neoconservatives called Ron Paul an anti-semite for not worshipping Israel when all of his ideas are based off of ideas that came from Jews, i.e. Rothbard, Mises, Rand, Kirzner, Block, Machlup, etc.