It's incredibly common. Mises and Hayek get this a lot, though usually they're just ignored completely. There's entire books written on guilt by association. Milton Friedman and James Buchanan have both had books written essentially attacking them because they gave a speech to a group of academic economists who at a different time worked for a dictator or a segregationist. There's entire NYT best sellers that get fawning profiles that are based around a sentence taken out of context as supporting evidence for an entire elaborate conspiracy theory, never with any actual evidence of anything. Those Friedman and Buchanan books ignore everything else the two very prolific dudes ever wrote and argued in favor of to instead "connect the dots" about how this guy talked to this other guy who gave money to a group that hired them to do research that's never been criticized but don't you think it's shady how they got money for it? And how this exposes a secret capitalist plot to destroy democracy, since real democracy can only ever be anti-capitalist.
You'd never get away with doing it to Marxists (outside of the Fox News conservative circles), which is fine because you don't have to, you can just quote what they actually said. Not that this "counts" because well, they have good intentions with their desire for mass murder and totalitarianism. Unlike Mises or Hayek who were secretly building systemic support for fascism by attacking the logic and rhetoric and theories of totalitarians instead of supporting them.
Only Mises is supposed to be discredited by being an early 20th Century European using inelegant wording around race by 21st Century standards. All the progressives who were legit scientific racists and eugenicists and supported totalitarian "experiments" like communism and fascism are all safe, their theories can't be questioned by these things, that's just smearing good people trying to advance society. But Mises, no you can't trust his theories and especially not his criticism of socialism that nobody has ever refuted, just look what he said about Negros. Don't you think that's suspicious? What do you think he's really trying to do with his criticism of obvious objectively good things like communism? Nazis opposed communism, and Hitler was from Austria too.
Plus. Like, do you really want to be uncouth? What's next? Thinking humans only have two sexes? Maybe try basic human decency.
You'd never get away with doing it to Marxists (outside of the Fox News conservative circles), which is fine because you don't have to, you can just quote what they actually said. Not that this "counts" because well, they have good intentions with their desire for mass murder and totalitarianism. Unlike Mises or Hayek who were secretly building systemic support for fascism by attacking the logic and rhetoric and theories of totalitarians instead of supporting them.
Only Mises is supposed to be discredited by being an early 20th Century European using inelegant wording around race by 21st Century standards. All the progressives who were legit scientific racists and eugenicists and supported totalitarian "experiments" like communism and fascism are all safe, their theories can't be questioned by these things, that's just smearing good people trying to advance society. But Mises, no you can't trust his theories and especially not his criticism of socialism that nobody has ever refuted, just look what he said about Negros. Don't you think that's suspicious? What do you think he's really trying to do with his criticism of obvious objectively good things like communism? Nazis opposed communism, and Hitler was from Austria too.
Plus. Like, do you really want to be uncouth? What's next? Thinking humans only have two sexes? Maybe try basic human decency.
3 users liked this post: