Theme: Religion

What is the origin of Jewish/Cosmopolitan/Marxist/Postmodern “Psychologizing?” Where does that come from?

We don’t do this in western philosophy, particularly in aristocracy, except under polemical circumstances. It’s considered ill mannered at minimum, is a violation of the equality of condition required to enter into debate, and as such it has and can get you challenged to a duel, and killed – which was only successfully outlawed last century. I suggest wrongly so. It is the worse violation of debate, and an obscurant means of calling someone a liar. And calls his argument into question, not on logical grounds but on grounds of honesty that are a prerequisite for warriors to lay down their arms when entering a debate.

In the west, ridicule is dishonest. It could get you killed. Heck, calling a woman a whore could get you killed. We constrained speech heavily until the marxists abused the constitutional law.

I didn’t really understand it before as a technique for loading, framing, and overloading, nor that it is an evolution of ‘rallying and shaming” used by females to control alphas through competitors.

But where does it start? Where did this evolve from? Why does Popper use it to criticize Hegel (fallaciously in most cases). Why do Rothbard and Hoppe rely upon ridicule when they have a weak argument? Why does rothbard create straw men? Why is Mises adamant that he is right, condemn others as socialists, but write pseudoscience with the air of pontification? Why is nonsense endemic in rothbardian libertarianism? Why are postmoderns masters of it on a scale never seen before? Why are marxists masters of rallying and shaming?

I had thought it was a Marxist strategy arising out of critique. I don’t know a lot of thinkers outside of Spinoza, Maimonides, Mendelssohn, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard and Chomsky. Chomsky can’t utter an honest sentence. But Spinoza, Maimonides, and Mendelssohn don’t seem to do anything of the sort.

Why do marxists rely so heavily on ridicule rather than argument? Conversely, why was it so hard, and does it remain so hard, for conservatives to adopt ridicule, and instead continue to levy accusations of immorality? Why do progressives and socialists all conservatives stupid, yet fail to grasp them, while conservatives understand progressives but merely call them wrong and fostering immorality?

I can explain these behaviors in evolutionary terms, and I can explain them in cognitive terms. But what I don’t know is where the use of that form of rhetoric in public originated? Where does this kind of nonsense argument start? Is it in France? Is that where the marxists got their arguments? It is, is isn’t it. But, is that the start of it, or did it exist before?

Was it buried int he lower classes but prohibited like Montainge’s digressions from literary works? Than with the rise of printing it expanded through newly available channels the way ghetto speak has expanded in current language?

So where does this set of techniques come from? Where does the straw man, ridicule, pseudoscientific, ‘critique’ method of fallacious argument that is so expensive and impossible to counter come from?

Help appreciated.

I mean, I know it’s immoral and I know how to arm against it now, but where did it start? It seems so much like french vaudevillian nonsense, and thats the only place I can come from.

Thanks.