[MODERATOR EDIT: Readers should be aware that the following characterization is a lie.]
"At a dinner [for the 1950s Freeman], Ayn Rand contradicted Mises on some doctrinal point, causing the eminent professor to stop eating and mobilize his scorn and fury on her. Ayn Rand thereupon burst into tears and exclaimed, “You are treating me like an ignorant little Jewish girl!” Mises jumped up from his chair with joy. “That is exactly what you are! An ignorant little Jewish girl!”
~ from Flying High, memoir of William F. Buckley Jr.
Ouch… I knew that Mises was an ass in real life but that’s…
Kinda ironic the whole jewish thing however… I wonder if this is completey true though because this seems like something that would be more widely heard of in Libertarian circles but IDK…
In the fall of 1961, Mises and Rand met at
a party in Henry Hazlitt’s house.23 After dinner, a discussion
between them turned into an argument on philosophical prin-
ciple and drew the attention of the bystanders. It is not clear
what was said, even though there were a number of topics on
which they heartily disagreed.24 In any case, Russell Kirk, a
notorious critic of Randianism who had witnessed the discus-
sion, was later reported to have said in his lectures before stu-
dent audiences that Mises had called Ayn Rand “a silly little Jew
girl.” When the report was brought to Mises’s attention, he immediately wrote to Kirk: “I never called Mrs. Ayn Rand—or for that matter, anyone else—‘a silly little Jew girl.’ I should be
obliged if you would not repeat this false story in the future.” Kirk denied it all:
Your informant, with the eccentricity and fanaticism
characteristic of the Randian cult, seems to have com-
bined details from several accounts of the meeting
between yourself and Miss Rand which she had
heard, and to have attributed the composite story to
me. Any anti-Jewish prejudice, or suggestion thereof,
was not contained in my second-hand account, nor in
the account which I heard. But I am glad to have from
Mr. Hazlitt a more accurate report of the encounter,
before receiving your letter.
When the report was brought to Mises’s attention, he immediately wrote to Kirk: “I never called Mrs. Ayn Rand—or for that matter, anyone else—‘a silly little Jew girl.’ I should be
obliged if you would not repeat this false story in the future.”
Well, Mises just went down a few notches in my eyes.
I’d guess he’s covering though, as Hazlitt’s account does show he implicitly called her a “silly little Jew girl.”
As host, I had taken orders for drinks and was bringing them to the living room. As I entered, Ayn was saying to Lu: “You treat me like an ignorant little Jewish girl.” I had not hear what Lu had said, but I bravely started to patch things up: “Oh, I’m sure, Ayn, that Lu didn’t mean it that way.” Lu promptly jumped up and said: “I did mean it that way.”
Lu’s hearing was not good. I suspected at the the time, and have been convinced since, that he had misunderstood one of Ayn’s remarks.
One indication is that in ten minutes or so everything had quieted down. Another is that on no other occasion did I know Lu to be personally rude to anyone. (Argumentative, yes.)
Long afterwards, Ayn Rand and Lu Mises showed that they admired each other. Ayn continued to preach “selfishness”; but now in deference to Mises she added insistence on the need for “human cooperation.” She did this with no sense of inconsistency.
A few years after that dinner party — which must have been close to forty years ago [Hazlitt’s letter is dated March 13, 1982] — meeting Ayn, I said: “Lu Mises and I were talking about you the other day. He called you, ‘the most courageous man in America.’” “Did he say ‘man’?” Ayn asked eagerly. “Yes,” I assured her. She was delighted.
That’s Hazlitt’s judgment, based on years of close, personal familiarity with the man’s character, including the fact that “on no other occasion did I know Lu to be personally rude to anyone.”
[MODERATOR EDIT: Readers should be aware that the following characterization is a lie.]
It’s moderately amusing when one lies in the act of calling something a “lie.” Buckley’s characterization is not a “lie” - it is his retelling with fair accuracy what was accounted to him by Hazlitt or whoever. That the interpretation of intention may be false based on Hazlitt’s speculation regarding Mises’ psychological and physical state does not nullify witnessed accounts of what happened, and it makes none of it a “lie” even if the inference is wholly mistaken.
“Mises jumped up from his chair with joy. “That is exactly what you are! An ignorant little Jewish girl!””
…is a lie. As you can read in the quote from Hulsmann’s bio that I posted, it’s based on a report alleged to have been given by Russel Kirk, which Kirk denied having given. NO first-hand witness EVER said that Mises “jumped up from his chair with joy” and said, “That is exactly what you are! An ignorant little Jewish girl!” That was a lying second-hand account delivered by one of Rand’s own acolytes.
If Mises did insult Rand by saying “silly little Jew girl” or “ignorant little Jewish girl” it wouldn’t change the way I see Mises. If this was the outcome between a philosophical debate between the two (which, I’m sure Mises would come out victorious), wouldn’t you think someone who’s a free-market capitalist insulting Rand to be somewhat comical?
NO first-hand witness EVER said that Mises “jumped up from his chair with joy” and said, “That is exactly what you are! An ignorant little Jewish girl!” That was a lying second-hand account delivered by one of Rand’s own acolytes.
Even if we knew that account was in fact a deliberate lie from one of Rand’s sycophants (we don’t, though I’ll agree it’s likely), it would still then be misleading to call Buckley’s characterization a “lie.” A more accurate statement would be ‘Part of this characterization is likely mistaken.’ It also possibly was merely a case of a story changing through the retellings, which anyone who played ‘telephone’ when they were a kid will be familiar with,
If this was the outcome between a philosophical debate between the two (which, I’m sure Mises would come out victorious), wouldn’t you think someone who’s a free-market capitalist insulting Rand to be somewhat comical
Yes, which is why I posted it.
Rand needs to be insulted more from the free market side, given her philosophical arguments are extremely weak and undermine the better arguments (eg. Mises’).
The characterization is a lie. Whether Buckley himself (or you for that matter), in passing on the lie, was himself a liar, or merely a frivolous gossip, is immaterial to that fact.
You can’t demonstrate that and have no objective basis for any accusation of it against anyone whatsoever, and given you’re the one who started lobbing unsubstantiated accusations over the rather trivial but amusing anecdote, the only one engaging in frivolity is yourself.
And given the entirety of my post was a cited quotation from Buckley’s book, it would be impossible for me to be “liar” unless I deliberately misquoted Buckley.
I’m not sure you understand how this “lying” thing works..