Two reasons we have already mentioned; to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project. But there is a third reason as well: as a powerful defense of the results of the free market. If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.

In any case, there is cause for jubilation these days, for it looks as if the left-egalitarian blackout-and-smear gang has been dealt a truly lethal blow.

also fun from him:

. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[4] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[5] (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?[6] The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)

I don't particularly care how credible any of this stuff is.  A school of economic thought that concludes that most of what working economists do for a living is somewhere between useless and harmful is probably going to be discredited by mainstream working economists.  Oh, whoops, now I'm a conspiracy theorist.  Except that I'm not.  I don't think that Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke have secret meetings in smoke-filled rooms to talk about how they must discredit the Austrian school, I just think that if your whole career is based on econometric modeling and central banking and advising politicians on how to fiddle with interest rates and the money supply and aggregate demand, and there's somebody over in the corner saying that a fixed hard currency supply is logically adequate to run any system of economic exchange and that the best thing to do to an economy is leave it the hell alone, you're not likely to find it at all credible, and if asked what you think about those ideas, you'll say they're not credible.  Individual actors all reaching the same conclusion for their own personal reasons isn't a conspiracy, but it may still lead to a distortion of the truth.

As far as whether racists, anti-semites and conspiracy theorists tend to be associated with the Mises Institute, nothing I've read so far on their website seems to me to be racist or anti-semitic, but I haven't been reading it much.  I'm new to this stuff, give me time.  I may come around yet.

The Rothbard quotes are pretty ugly, yes.  Like I said, I haven't read his works yet.  He has been cited as an influential writer by other authors whose work I've read in this sphere.

Is there a catchy phrase to describe the following?

1. Somebody has some interesting, reasonable ideas or does some legitimate research...
2. Those ideas or that research is latched on to, taken out of context, and completely misunderstood by an unsavory political group and used to justify their unjust policies.
3. Therefore, the interesting/reasonable ideas and/or legitimate research is discredited and/or declared off-limits for serious discussion.