NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

Go through the list (compiled by a conservative panel) and see which ones you agree/disagree and why.

Naturally, all the more famous Communist and Evolution books are covered.

The Communist Manifesto got over twice that of any other book on the list. And it really isn't that good of a read. I personally thought that Mein Kampf was more inflammitory then the Manifesto.


Silent Spring is an honorable mention? What the hell?

:eek: John Stuart Mill, WHAT THE FUCK?!!!!!!!?! :eek:

HEY!

Arnold Beichman
Don Devine
Phyllis Schlafly


Then that is stuff worth reading!

Thanks for the list. Some I have read and others I have not. Since these three hate the books, I will go out and get them!

You want to talk harmful? Read the Harry Potter books. :D

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

Go through the list (compiled by a conservative panel) and see which ones you agree/disagree and why.

Naturally, all the more famous Communist and Evolution books are covered.

I love how they turn a scientific study of sex into a NAMBLA promotional pamphlet, get an "FDR IS TEH SOCIALIZT" in there, insult liberals, and turn anti-stay-at-home-moms into feminazi communists (there's an oxymoron for you) all in one article.

Didn’t make the list, only because people don’t yet realize the harm they’re doing

The Story of “O”

The Wizard of Oz

The Idiots Guide to Oscillating Overthrusters

HEY!

Arnold Beichman
Don Devine
Phyllis Schlafly
Never heard of them. But I prefer to pick books for my own edification and learning, not because someone else either told me I should, or told me I shouldn't read them.

:eek: John Stuart Mill, WHAT THE FUCK?!!!!!!!?! :eek:

I wonder why they added that one, too.

(found it online: http://www.bartleby.com/130/)

I rather thought the 'General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money' was a good addition:

Keynes was a member of the British elite--educated at Eton and Cambridge--who as a liberal Cambridge economics professor wrote General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in the midst of the Great Depression. The book is a recipe for ever-expanding government. When the business cycle threatens a contraction of industry, and thus of jobs, he argued, the government should run up deficits, borrowing and spending money to spur economic activity. FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt.

They are trying to pin the debt on the left by blaming FDR when Bush supporters are saying high deficits and debt are a good thing to justify our current economic situation. They should really go back in time and examine how much these things go up during each administration.

Democracy and Education


Summary: John Dewey, who lived from 1859 until 1952, was a “progressive” philosopher and leading advocate for secular humanism in American life, who taught at the University of Chicago and at Columbia. He signed the Humanist Manifesto and rejected traditional religion and moral absolutes. In Democracy and Education, in pompous and opaque prose, he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged the teaching of thinking “skills” instead. His views had great influence on the direction of American education--particularly in public schools--and helped nurture the Clinton generation.

WTF? How does this make sense??

Beyond Good and Evil

An oft-scribbled bit of college-campus graffiti says: “‘God is dead’--Nietzsche” followed by “‘Nietzsche is dead’--God.” Nietzsche’s profession that “God is dead” appeared in his 1882 book, The Gay Science, but under-girded the basic theme of Beyond Good and Evil, which was published four years later. Here Nietzsche argued that men are driven by an amoral “Will to Power,” and that superior men will sweep aside religiously inspired moral rules, which he deemed as artificial as any other moral rules, to craft whatever rules would help them dominate the world around them. “Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of the strange and weaker, suppression, severity, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and, at the least and mildest, exploitation,” he wrote. The Nazis loved Nietzsche.

Yeah, the neocons and Christian right love him too apparently.

That panel must be one of the most radically conservative ever, to think that the communist mannifesto is above mein kamph, which overtly promotes anti semitism and genocide.And The Kinsey Report? What the fuck? While I don't know much about "The Feminine Mystique" or "Democracy and Education" Empowering women and Empowering learning practical skills and problem solving over hard facts both seem like admirable goals to me.

Never heard of them. But I prefer to pick books for my own edification and learning, not because someone else either told me I should, or told me I shouldn't read them.

Ahh but if they are upset about it then usually they have "organizations" trying to remove them from bookshelves. I always read what people want censored to find out what they don't want me to know. ;)

Many on the list have been banned at one time or another. Knowledge is a dangerous you know! ;)

I live near the Hoover institute and have listend to "Mr." Beichman. Lovely piece of work.

I am surprised you never heard of Schlafly. She was big about 20-30 years ago. Bitched and moaned that gays and NOW were going to destroy the country.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Phyllis_Schlafly

The Communist Manifesto got over twice that of any other book on the list. And it really isn't that good of a read. I personally thought that Mein Kampf was more inflammitory then the Manifesto.


Silent Spring is an honorable mention? What the hell?

To be fair, there's still debate on the citation used in Silent Spring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring

oh theres some classic quotes here

"1. The Communist Manifesto
...
The Evil Empire of the Soviet Union put the Manifesto into practice."


"4. The Kinsey Report
...
The reports were designed to give a scientific gloss to the normalization of promiscuity and deviancy....and suggested that sex between adults and children could be beneficial"


"5. Democracy and Education
...
In Democracy and Education, in pompous and opaque prose, he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged the teaching of thinking “skills” instead."

"6. Das Kapital
...
He could not have predicted 21st Century America: a free, affluent society based on capitalism and representative government that people the world over envy and seek to emulate."

"9. Beyond Good and Evil
...
The Nazis loved Nietzsche."

"10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
...
FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt."


awesome.


Im not entirely sure how "The Feminine Mystique" is harmful (other than the fact it was opposed to the housewife idea)

And The Kinsey Report? What the fuck? While I don't know much about "The Feminine Mystique" or "Democracy and Education" Empowering women and Empowering learning practical skills and problem solving over hard facts both seem like admirable goals to me.

You pagen!

Don't you know sex is BAD!

I wonder why they added that one, too.

(found it online: http://www.bartleby.com/130/)

I rather thought the 'General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money' was a good addition:



They are trying to pin the debt on the left by blaming FDR when Bush supporters are saying high deficits and debt are a good thing to justify our current economic situation. They should really go back in time and examine how much these things go up during each administration.
Clinton almost had the debt even and then bush decides oh no we need tax cuts...and lots of them so poof there goes the economy...8 trillion dollars all going to a war mongre whos oil hungry and hates anyone with a contradictory opinion...he also looks like a monkey and has a vocabulary worse than my twelve year old sisters!!!!

Number 11: the Bible.

Has a positive message, but some of the worst offences in history (and most boneheaded laws) occured "because God said so."

Let's see, According to this list, conservatives scholars apparently don't like communism, Nazis, people who don't believe in God, equal rights for women, and very strangely, the guy who did more to save the world from communism than possibly anyone else, and whose ideas were used and improved upon by Milton Friedman who is a conservative darling.

Sheesh! Have gay sex in an elevator once or twice and these conservative scholars never forgive you.

Ahh but if they are upset about it then usually they have "organizations" trying to remove them from bookshelves. I always read what people want censored to find out what they don't want me to know. ;)

Many on the list have been banned at one time or another. Knowledge is a dangerous you know! ;)

I live near the Hoover institute and have listend to "Mr." Beichman. Lovely piece of work.

I am surprised you never heard of Schlafly. She was big about 20-30 years ago. Bitched and moaned that gays and NOW were going to destroy the country.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Phyllis_Schlafly

Oh, that woman is the nastiest sort. I always wondered why the ERA didn't pass and SHE was the reason why. That's just mind-blowing. Worse still, she's smiling in her pic. I find it really creepy when nuts like this smile. But outing her son, now that is priceless. God works in mysterious ways. :D

Got a link for Beichman?

"Yossarian here, tossing in my vote for Catch-22."

*he says and rolls over onto the nurse, to once again, get himself kneed in the groin*

Let's see, According to this list, conservatives scholars apparently don't like communism, Nazis, people who don't believe in God, equal rights for women, and very strangely, the guy who did more to save the world from communism than possibly anyone else, and whose ideas were used and improved upon by Milton Friedman who is a conservative darling.

Sheesh! Have gay sex in an elevator once or twice and these conservative scholars never forgive you.
Methinks they're jealous for not being invited.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

Go through the list (compiled by a conservative panel) and see which ones you agree/disagree and why.

Naturally, all the more famous Communist and Evolution books are covered.
Actually, evolution is only given an honorable mention. And frankly, I agree with much of the list. Kinsey's report, Hitler's Mein Kampf, Marx's Mainfesto, etc...Are all books that have done much harm.

"10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
...
FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt."That one's great.

To be fair, there's still debate on the citation used in Silent Spring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring

That article is having its neutrality debated (slanted against the findings of the book). WIKI WORKS!! :)

"Yossarian here, tossing in my vote for Catch-22."

*he says and rolls over onto the nurse, to once again, get himself kneed in the groin*

I will admit my ignorance and say "Huh?". Source?

Marx's Mainfesto
Have you ever actually bothered to read the Manifesto?

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

Go through the list (compiled by a conservative panel) and see which ones you agree/disagree and why.

Naturally, all the more famous Communist and Evolution books are covered.

It doesn't matter whether a book is good or bad for you to read, we are going to read it anyway. Everyone has the right to their opinion as long as they don't shove that opinion down a population throat

I will admit my ignorance and say "Huh?". Source?
Not actually a quote. I find myself akin often to Yossarian. He was the lead character of Catch-22 (written by Joseph Heller, phrase coined with Kurt Vonnegut)
He realized how f*cking insane it was to have a squadron commander who kept upping the missions required for rotation, and he naturally responded by desperately attempting to bury his problems and other things in a sexual encounter or few .... to wit, there was this nurse that would spend much time speaking loftily while his attention was pretty solely focused on the nookie - and when she'd finally not be distracted, he'd get a knee in the nuts.

Have you ever actually bothered to read the Manifesto?
It really isn't that bad.

Oh, that woman is the nastiest sort. I always wondered why the ERA didn't pass and SHE was the reason why. That's just mind-blowing. Worse still, she's smiling in her pic. I find it really creepy when nuts like this smile. But outing her son, now that is priceless. God works in mysterious ways. :D

Got a link for Beichman?

Yup. She has yet to live that one down. :D

As to Beichman! I think I have to withdraw my comment. I looked for a couple and now I think I am thinking of somebody else.

Beichman was the guy who created World Freedom Day.

I agree with the list 150%.

You'd think it would be really embarrassing to be a far-right Conservative. Unfortunately, they're too self-righteous to feel shame.

The manifesto itself isn't as bad as the misguided revolutions it inspired. Perhaps Marx should have included a section on actually maintaining the economic equality after attaining it, as opposed to turning an ideal into a corrupt totalitarian regime.

You'd think it would be really embarrassing to be a far-right Conservative. Unfortunately, they're too self-righteous to feel shame.



Oh? And here all this time I had thought that being a left-wing radical would be the truly embarrassing thing. Fancy that.

I agree with the list 150%.

I am shocked! ;)

You'd think it would be really embarrassing to be a far-right Conservative. Unfortunately, they're too self-righteous to feel shame.

Or too sociopathic. :D

I agree with the list 150%.
I can see your objection to some of the books, but what do you have against woman's rights? Evolution?

Oh? And here all this time I had thought that being a left-wing radical would be the truly embarrassing thing. Fancy that.


Now you know. Your welcome.

Thanks for the list. Now I will go out and buy all of them. Read them and then send the entire set (I'll buy several copies of each book) to other left-wing people. From there we all send them to those right-wing conservatives. Anyway, I thought the list was very harmful. I was insulted by seeing all of them on the list. Well ok Mein Kampf is very hateful, but come on, so is the Republican National Convention, and you don't see anyone banning coverage of that on FOX. I'll even go further and say the Bible has been THE deadilest book. Look at all the people who died in the name of purity. The Bible led to this whole Mideast problem and people like Puritans who burn innocent (and probably nice-looking) women and girls at the stake. Come on. Well I'm off to the bookstore to buy these.

Hah, they even voted for Origin of Species, the retards.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

Go through the list (compiled by a conservative panel) and see which ones you agree/disagree and why.

Naturally, all the more famous Communist and Evolution books are covered.
I needed a good chuckle

"The Evil Empire of the Soviet Union put the Manifesto into practice." LOL

I may disagree with a lot of the acts that the USSR carried out in the name of communism but dubbing them the “evil empire” is silly lol

Lol this one was funny too

“the Nazis loved Nietzsche.”

Okay, I can feasably see the Manifesto on there, but one line completely destroys an validity these people had:

"The Evil Empire of the Soviet Union put the Manifesto into practice."

Anybody who knows anything about the Soviet Union knows that it most assuredly did NOT put the Manifesto into practice. I highly doubt taht these people have even read most of what they have on the damn list. I've read the Communist Manifesto, and it completely and utterly different than anything that currently is represented in teh world. It is also very long and boring. You will likely fall asleep while reading it. I can see it being on the list for what it brought through misinterpretation, but the book itself isn't BAD or EVIL. Read it. You'll be surprised.

However, having Manifesto above Mein Kampf? Something is odd here...

As for Quotations of Chairman Mao, it was taken completely out of context for one thing, and how is the creation of a Communist state in CHINA damaging or harmful to anybody else, really? I think these people are really idealogical, and didn't go about this objectively, going about this with extreme bias.

The Kinsey report-I would hardly think this has been damaging. If anything, it has been helpful in taking down the negative feeling towards sex. I don't really think this belongs on the list. Sure it has some... controversial issues, but controversy isn't bad.

Democracy and Education-God forbid kids learn instead of being taught what is "normal" or being force fed information, turning schools into memorization halls. Cause, you know, kids don't need to learn. They only need to know exactly what we want them to know. If they can learn, who knows what they may find!

Das Kapital-This was more of a documentary than anything, and a very accurate one to boot. Sure, he couldn't predict 21st century, but several events were out anyone predicting: WW1, and WWII for the most part. On the same note, our economy is no longer the "envy of the world". These people lose credibility more and more. In actuality, many nations have great economies, many of which incorporate Socialism. But of course, socialism is not helpful. Yeah... until you look at the real world.

The Feminine Mystique-The only disernable reason this is on the list is because the Friedman was a so-called "Stalinist-Marxist" and was pointed out as a "lover" of a communist... which doesn't purtain at all to the book, but I guess these people looked over this issue.

8&9 I can agree with, to an extent. They, although not necessarily "evil books" (Oddly enough Beyond Good & Evil preaches almost the exact opposite of the Communist Manifesto-which is a fact that I'm sure these panelists didn't mind overlooking) had bad impacts upon the world.

As for General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, I haven't read. However, from what was said in thier review, it's fairly obvious that although the ideas were implicated by FDR, it's also being used by Bush, which I'm sure they are all for.

I'm having a hard time any of these people have read these books, let alone know anything about their true impact on the world.

Woops... *slight* typo.

Number 11: the Bible.

Has a positive message, but some of the worst offences in history (and most boneheaded laws) occured "because God said so."

I think we just need an abridged version.

Something like:

Gen 1 God made stuff.
Lev 1 God said "knock that shit off down there."
Rev 1 We're all dead someday.

Those books are indeed dangerous. The only thing we need to decide is .. ban em', or burn em'? We best get ahold of them before women and the proles do, or we'll have alot of 'splainin to do.

But seriously ... my nomination is Atlas Shrugged. Bad fiction passed off as some deep philosophical work.

As for General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, I haven't read. However, from what was said in thier review, it's fairly obvious that although the ideas were implicated by FDR, it's also being used by Bush, Some of what FDR did could be called Keynesian, other things the FDR administration did were the opposite. I wouldn't call Bush Keynesian, otherwise his tax breaks would have been temporary and for the poor. The Bush tax cuts got very little bang for the buck as far as stimulating the economy go and put the long term health of the United States economy in danger. I'm sure John Maynard Keynes would have some scathing things to say about the management of the U.S. economy were he alive today. (In between bouts of good, healthy, gay sex of course.)

The Communist Manifesto got over twice that of any other book on the list. And it really isn't that good of a read. I personally thought that Mein Kampf was more inflammitory then the Manifesto.

Of course, the list is "Most Harmful Books." I was a little puzzled about how Mein Kampf made the list at first. Hitler didn't use the book to get people to do what he wrote about, he went and did it himself after first writing his plans in a book. The only harm it could have done to anyone was to Hitler himself, and his agenda, by giving away his plans.

But then of course, that would be what the conservatives see as the harm. He's gone and published the playbook. It's like a magician telling you how the woman in the chopped up box keeps from getting julienned.

Some of what FDR did could be called Keynesian, other things the FDR administration did were the opposite. I wouldn't call Bush Keynesian, otherwise his tax breaks would have been temporary and for the poor. The Bush tax cuts got very little bang for the buck as far as stimulating the economy go and put the long term health of the United States economy in danger. I'm sure John Maynard Keynes would have some scathing things to say about the management of the U.S. economy were he alive today. (In between bouts of good, healthy, gay sex of course.)

I think it's pretty funny that they're blaming FDR and Keynes for the deficit when it's directly attributable to Reagan and Laffer. It would be like a junkie complaining that his wife blew their last $75 on shoes, so now he has none left to go buy his drugs.

I think we just need an abridged version.

Something like:

Gen 1 God made stuff.
Lev 1 God said "knock that shit off down there."
Rev 1 We're all dead someday.
FLORT!

*note: "rotfl" doesn't work for me, second time i've used "flort"*
Also, i liked your analogy in your last post.

Some of what FDR did could be called Keynesian, other things the FDR administration did were the opposite. I wouldn't call Bush Keynesian, otherwise his tax breaks would have been temporary and for the poor. The Bush tax cuts got very little bang for the buck as far as stimulating the economy go and put the long term health of the United States economy in danger. I'm sure John Maynard Keynes would have some scathing things to say about the management of the U.S. economy were he alive today. (In between bouts of good, healthy, gay sex of course.)

Reagan, Bush, and Bush Jr. loosly follow the tax scheme of a guy called Arther Laffer. He had a simple and elegant theory on government taxation.

i.e. there is a theoretical optimal point of taxation (lets call it X)that if you raise taxes higher than X then production goes down and there is less economic activity to tax, so tax revenues decline. When taxes are lowered below X the government simply gains less money than it could.

Now X is always moving, so politicians have to play around with raising and lowering taxes to see how it affects the revenue. But republicans always seem to find that taxation is probably a bit higher than X and that taxes need to be lowered. This makes those politicians very popular, and indicates that they are full of shit. This makes the economy very unpopular and turns it to shit.

The problem is that conservatives have embraced the concept, but not the goals. Keyensian economics works for regulating the economy and keeping it functional, something that conservatives ought to favor, but Laffer's economic theory only concerns itself with how the government can get more money. Something that conservatives are supposed to oppose. Fortunatly for conservative politicians, conservative voters, for the most part, are completly clueless on these matters. All they hear is "bla bla bla lower taxes, it's your money, bla bla bla."

I think the problem is not the books, but the idiots who misuse them.
Also Silent spring should be in the top five, as DDT had the possibility to destroy malaria before that book. It was the most effective pesticide of that generation for it's toxicity which has not been significantly proved, and could have saved billions.

I think the list should make a distinction between books that have been historically harmful and those which are currently harmful.

Many books (such as Mein Kamf) have caused damage in the past, but for most people today would just be a (possibly) interesting read.

The list is also from a consevative viewpoint.....so if someone already disagrees with the consevative viewpoint, it's probably just torturing themselves to look though the whole list.....unless they are looking for book recommendations. ;)

The list is also from a consevative viewpoint.....so if someone already disagrees with the consevative viewpoint, it's probably just torturing themselves to look though the whole list.....unless they are looking for book recommendations. ;)

That's exactly why I read it, and bookmarked it.

It wasn't until I clicked on the link "what left leaning PBS bias?" that I realized this was a psycho-neocon site. Apparantly I am far more succeptible to reverse psychology than I realized.

How helpful. I will now try to read those books on the list I haven't read already. :)

I'm really surprised to see "On Liberty" by John Stewart Mill in the runners up list. There must be something I fail to understand about the conservative mindest that this panel of scholars thought it harmful enough to earn 18 points.

Could someone out there who understands why that's there explain it to me? I'm honestly baffled.

I have my own reasons for thinking Mill was a very dangerous thinker, but they don't line up with what I imagine most conservatives feel...

Yup. She has yet to live that one down. :D

As to Beichman! I think I have to withdraw my comment. I looked for a couple and now I think I am thinking of somebody else.

Beichman was the guy who created World Freedom Day.

If I ever see that woman I will ask her why she is outside of her home instead of in the kitchen.

Okay, I can feasably see the Manifesto on there, but one line completely destroys an validity these people had:

"The Evil Empire of the Soviet Union put the Manifesto into practice."

Anybody who knows anything about the Soviet Union knows that it most assuredly did NOT put the Manifesto into practice. I highly doubt taht these people have even read most of what they have on the damn list. I've read the Communist Manifesto, and it completely and utterly different than anything that currently is represented in teh world. It is also very long and boring. You will likely fall asleep while reading it. I can see it being on the list for what it brought through misinterpretation, but the book itself isn't BAD or EVIL. Read it. You'll be surprised.

However, having Manifesto above Mein Kampf? Something is odd here...

As for Quotations of Chairman Mao, it was taken completely out of context for one thing, and how is the creation of a Communist state in CHINA damaging or harmful to anybody else, really? I think these people are really idealogical, and didn't go about this objectively, going about this with extreme bias.

The Kinsey report-I would hardly think this has been damaging. If anything, it has been helpful in taking down the negative feeling towards sex. I don't really think this belongs on the list. Sure it has some... controversial issues, but controversy isn't bad.

Democracy and Education-God forbid kids learn instead of being taught what is "normal" or being force fed information, turning schools into memorization halls. Cause, you know, kids don't need to learn. They only need to know exactly what we want them to know. If they can learn, who knows what they may find!

Das Kapital-This was more of a documentary than anything, and a very accurate one to boot. Sure, he couldn't predict 21st century, but several events were out anyone predicting: WW1, and WWII for the most part. On the same note, our economy is no longer the "envy of the world". These people lose credibility more and more. In actuality, many nations have great economies, many of which incorporate Socialism. But of course, socialism is not helpful. Yeah... until you look at the real world.

The Feminine Mystique-The only disernable reason this is on the list is because the Friedman was a so-called "Stalinist-Marxist" and was pointed out as a "lover" of a communist... which doesn't purtain at all to the book, but I guess these people looked over this issue.

8&9 I can agree with, to an extent. They, although not necessarily "evil books" (Oddly enough Beyond Good & Evil preaches almost the exact opposite of the Communist Manifesto-which is a fact that I'm sure these panelists didn't mind overlooking) had bad impacts upon the world.

As for General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, I haven't read. However, from what was said in thier review, it's fairly obvious that although the ideas were implicated by FDR, it's also being used by Bush, which I'm sure they are all for.

I'm having a hard time any of these people have read these books, let alone know anything about their true impact on the world.

Woops... *slight* typo.

Seconded

hehe. Bunch of idiots talking about what they don't know.
Try this one. On War by General Clausewitz. The concept of total war was in that book.
Nietzche gets blamed for talking about the truth. But then again, peple hate others who defy their religion. Funny Napoleon said "A nation without a religion is like a ship without a rudder." Religion is simply a tool to control others. Look at the popes in the middle ages, they didn't seem to be a paragon of a saint. Most were power hungry. Most of religion is corrupt. There are some good parts in religion MAYBE, but most is just corrupt.
If they expand it to the 16th century, I can recommend the Prince. That was by far the best book I have ever read. It moved me.
Sun Tzu as well.
Lots of real harmful Chinese books in ancient times. Han Fei zi, wrote things equivalent to what we know now as "Realpolitik."
Zhan guo ce, taught deception in lobbying.
The Romance of the three kingdoms(san guo yanyi) could be harmful as it shows human nature and how some of the greatest dictators have taken advantage of it.
Why not 1984? That book moved me as well. "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." And "You do not establish the dictatorship to safeguard the revolution, you start the revolution to establish the dictatorship."
Dunno if Bismarck wrote anything, although his quotes are good. "Laws are like sausages, you'd better not see them being made."
Ha... Again, some stupid idiots are talking about things they don't even know or understand... Makes me even more contemptuous of academicians that are talking heads. They do nothing and put tags on everything.

Fan jing, taught zongheng zhi shu, which could be recognized as a dark art if used by evil hands.(Though I never found out what is evil and what is right. I never think of things as right or wrong, but as legitimate/lucrative or illegitimate/unlucrative)
Lots of ancient Chinese books taught how to use people, how to control people. Very tasty, Yum...

Maybe these idiots will post a book on abortion as harmful?

DDT had the possibility to destroy malaria before that book

Unfortunately countries that continued to use DDT, such as India, didn't have extreme success in eliminating marlaria spreading mosquitoes. I would imagine this was due to mosquitoes gaining resistance.

Books cause no harm. Period.

Unfortunately countries that continued to use DDT, such as India, didn't have extreme success in eliminating marlaria spreading mosquitoes. I would imagine this was due to mosquitoes gaining resistance.

This, and the fact that whereever there is water, there's mosquitos. You can spray to your heart's content on land, you're only killing the mosquitos that are alive. The Mosquito eggs in the water will hatch, thus completely destroying any "progress" you made in trying to kill them. You can't spray the water, as that would poison it. Basically, DDT is inneffectual in offing the Mosquito population. Other animal, such as Locusts and the California Condor, are a different story, though.

The Mosquito eggs in the water will hatch, thus completely destroying any "progress" you made in trying to kill them.

Well actually, by using repeated spraying I believe Brazil completely wiped out the species of mosquitoe that spreads dengue fever. Unfortuneately the mosquito reappeared, presumabley spreading from other countries, and so now you can catch dengue fever in Brazil again.

If DDT had been used with the sole purpose of wiping out disease carrying mosquitoes, perhaps it could have been done before the insects gained too much resistance. It could have been a pesticide version of the Apollo program.

Okay, I actually read the first post and the link and now I get it.

All it took was the ad hawking Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity's books and I realized that only the Nutjob Right would actually publish a list of books that they consider "harmful." Notice that it's only the Right that does this? Holy living fuck, these people are just plain crazy. That list is proof. Basically, they want you to believe that everything that ISN'T the Bible or written by Milton Friedman or Bill O'Reilly is mind-rotting filth. What they don't print on this list is the invite-only parties they're sponsoring where these books will be ceremonially burned.

Because that's where a list like this leads, folks -- first you demonize the books, then whatever you do to them after that is perfectly excusable because those books were "harmful". There's only one reason for a list like that, and that's FEAR, plain and simple. The Nutjob Right hopes and prays that they can get these books removed from libraries across the nation so that nobody will ever read them -- and an illiterate populous is ripe for control. I can't think of any legitimate reason for a list like this -- the people who would agree with them are never going to read them, so what's the point? Hell, I bet a sizeable portion of those on the "panel" haven't read many of the books on that list.

What a cowardly bunch of utter jackasses.

Hmm... I actually agree with none of the pickings.

First of all, books themselves are neither good nor bad. It's the influence they have on society that we can evaluate.

In that way, the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital weren't exclusively negative. They did provide a basis for dictatorship in Eastern Europe and a few other places, but tey were a fairly slim basis, those states and systems would be refering to interpretations of those books rather than the real thing. The books and the idea of communism also lead to the construction of the welfare state, social capitalism in most European nations and a general awarness that you cannot treat people like machines.

Mein Kampf is a very spiteful book, it promotes discrimination and genocide. Yet, its influence is very slim, as hardly anybody during the Third Reich really bothered to read it.

As for all the other books, compiling them under the headline "The most harmful books of the 19th and 20th century" shows an incredibly arrogant self-centered view of te world. Apart from the book by Mao, none of the books had any influence whatsoever anywhere outside the US!!!

--snippe--
As for all the other books, compiling them under the headline "The most harmful books of the 19th and 20th century" shows an incredibly arrogant self-centered view of the world. Apart from the book by Mao, none of the books had any influence whatsoever anywhere outside the US!!!

Exactly. You are so very correct that it almost hurts to read such sensible prose after scanning that list and site.

Unenlightened self-interest has never impressed me, and that's what this list represents. Well, that and what I put in my previous post.

So good on ya!

I would agree that no book is harmful. People, who's minds interpret what they read to fit their own view of things, can make a books message harmful...but a book is not "harmful"

I love how The Feminine Mystique is on the list, when you consider that 14 of the 15 judges were men...and some hardcore conservatives have the gall to say they're not prejudiced... :rolleyes:

That said, I had a thought....

...perhaps we should get 15 people together and make our own NS list of "Harmful" Books.

I'm sure we can come up with more intelligent reasons for our nominations than what these people came up with.

Any volunteers?

I would agree that no book is harmful. People, who's minds interpret what they read to fit their own view of things, can make a books message harmful...but a book is not "harmful"

I love how The Feminine Mystique is on the list, when you consider that 14 of the 15 judges were men...and some hardcore conservatives have the gall to say they're not prejudiced... :rolleyes:

That said, I had a thought....

...perhaps we should get 15 people together and make our own NS list of "Harmful" Books.

I'm sure we can come up with more intelligent reasons for our nominations than what these people came up with.

Any volunteers?


Of the last two centuries or overall?

Edit :
And I volunteer!

Mein Kampf is a terrible read... The grammar in it is a real pain. I don't think anyone in the Reich really read it, because if so, then it would have been clear from day one. Hitler wrote everything into it, his plans are in there, absolutely clear.

Skinner? Darwin? Foucault? Freud? De Beauvoir? Wtf... lol

Please also note the following

Author: Freidrich Nietzsche

Who the F is Freidrich Nietzsche? I only know Friedrich Nietsche. If you bash him, at least spell his name right. Btw, the Nazis also loved Wagner (so did Kilgore in Apocalypse Now) and Hitler was quite obsessed with occult things (like Nostradamus, etc). Now that does that tell us? Well, maybe that anything can be abused by a dictator if he feels like it? If the Nazis would have loved vanilla pudding it'd be on such a list too I guess.

I'm wondering if they even read all the books and thought over them, or if they acted like sheep, aka just took them, looked at the cover and then judged.

I forgot who said this "First you burn the books, then you burn the people." Fitting I think.

Of the last two centuries or overall?

Edit :
And I volunteer!

Well, I was going to say the last two centuries, but if those who want to participate want to expand on that, then I would not object to the idea.

Perhaps we should start a new thread for this?

The most harmful book of the 20th century. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/088404503X/ref=dp_primary-product-display_0/103-1538953-5633468?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books)

The most harmful book of the 20th century. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/088404503X/ref=dp_primary-product-display_0/103-1538953-5633468?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books)

lol, actually... so true.


On a second note, I volunteer too!

I'm wondering if they even read all the books and thought over them, or if they acted like sheep, aka just took them, looked at the cover and then judged.

I forgot who said this "First you burn the books, then you burn the people." Fitting I think.

they probabli saw the names Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler and immediatli banned them

I would second a new thread. The last two centuries are ok, I guess, otherwise we would end up with way to many books.

Why in the name of ronald reagan is John Keynes on the list, damn neo-con death cult loves him, Richard Nixon "Now, I am a Keynesian" Keynes would have loved the idea of pre-emptive war, it sparks government spending which leads to economic growth Keynes would say. Why isnt the WCED (Brundtland report) on their list? Nietzsche? come on, he wrote that the super-men do not answer to the law, another Neo-con death cult belief, why just beyond good and evil, is Thus Spake Zarathustra not "bad" you know I bet i can guess their criterion, if the book contains an average of 50% of the words being over 1 syllable in length its bad.

Starting a new thread for the NS "Harmful" Books list shortly...

...we still need more volunteers! :)

Keynes would have loved the idea of pre-emptive war, it sparks government spending which leads to economic growth Keynes would say.
Keynes would have your arse if he were alive to hear that. And he'd enjoy it too. He looked forward to a world of plenty in which people stopped committing barbarities. Killing wasn't his style. He liked his chums, fine art, ballet, and Russian Ballerinas. War was not his style. If more people had paid attention to what he advocated in his book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, written in 1919, there wouldn't have been a Nazi Germany.

Many books (such as Mein Kamf) have caused damage in the past, but for most people today would just be a (possibly) interesting read.

You've never read it I take it. It makes the Da Vinci Code look well written.




I wish they would give their reasons for why they have been harmful.

There is no such thing as harmful books, only stupid people.

hmmm... (reading list...) Well, I guess this just proves there are conservative whackos every bit as loopy as most of the American Left's Elite leadership. (Howard Dean, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, etc.)

I take that back, this "Panel of Scholars" look like they came from the same kind of diseased navel-gazing incubator that spawned such 'luminous' scholars as Ward Churchill.

Starting a new thread for the NS "Harmful" Books list shortly...

...we still need more volunteers! :)
Maybe "Harmful" Posters ... or "Mostly Harmless" Posters?
Or would that be too pushy?
;)

Unfortunately countries that continued to use DDT, such as India, didn't have extreme success in eliminating marlaria spreading mosquitoes. I would imagine this was due to mosquitoes gaining resistance.

Yes, because of Silent Spring, many nations stopped, thus reducing overall amounts and allowing resistance to build

I'm really surprised to see "On Liberty" by John Stewart Mill in the runners up list. There must be something I fail to understand about the conservative mindest that this panel of scholars thought it harmful enough to earn 18 points.

Could someone out there who understands why that's there explain it to me? I'm honestly baffled.

I have my own reasons for thinking Mill was a very dangerous thinker, but they don't line up with what I imagine most conservatives feel...

"A recent writer, in some respects of considerable merit, proposes (to use his own words) not a crusade, but a civilisade, against this polygamous community, to put an end to what seems to him a retrograde step in civilisation. It also appears so to me, but I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilised. So long as the sufferers by the bad law do not invoke assistance from other communities, I cannot admit that persons entirely unconnected with them ought to step in and require that a condition of things with which all who are directly interested appear to be satisified, should be put an end to because it is a scandal to persons some thousands of miles distant, who have no part or concern in it. Let them send missionaries, if they please, to preach against it; and let them, by any fair means (of which silencing the teachers in not one), oppose the progress of similar doctrines among their own people."
-- John Stewart Mill, Chapter 4 - Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual, On Liberty

In On Liberty, Mill expresses his disapproval of the practice of polygamy in "Mormonite" communities of his time. Even though he disapproves of this activity, he still declares that "it is difficult to see on what principles but those of tyranny they can be prevented from living there under what laws they please, provided they commit no aggression on other nations, and allow perfect freedom of departure to those who are dissatisfied with their ways."

Mill's beliefs are the exact opposite of the Trotsky-like Neoconservative values of perpetual global struggle and revolution in the name of "freedom" and "democracy" whereby those backwards peoples who do not share our own values must be shown the error of their ways, by violent force if necessary. Since Mill condemns this view as completely contrary to the concept of individual and human liberty, it is no surprise that the modern conservative establishment should consider Mill "harmful."

Starting a new thread for the NS "Harmful" Books list shortly...

...we still need more volunteers! :)

I nominate 'The Turner Diaries'.

Oh, let the book burnings commence. :rolleyes:

Or, to paraphrase 1776, -- Well now, in all my years, I've never seen, nor heard, nor smelled a topic so dangerous it couldn't be discussed....

Dewey, Das Kapital, The Course of Positive Philosophy,Beyond Good and Evil
,General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

I'm suprised that Stranger In A Strange Land or The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress weren't included. I would think conservative christians want to eliminate Heinlein from history!

Books cause no harm. Period.
Exactly what I was going to say.

There are no harmful books. Books are ideas, and all ideas are wonderful things.

Exactly what I was going to say.

There are no harmful books. Books are ideas, and all ideas are wonderful things.


I concur.

There are no harmful books. Books are ideas, and all ideas are wonderful things.

What about ones which create a romantic notion of the past with no basis in historical fact and effectively spread misinformation about a particular subject?

(Misinformation which is hard to correct I might add)

What about ones which create a romantic notion of the past with no basis in historical fact and effectively spread misinformation about a particular subject?

(Misinformation which is hard to correct I might add)

Even those are good. :) Even Stereo Instructions.

Even those are good. :) Even Stereo Instructions.

(NB: I'm not actually for banning anything. I just don't think all ideas are wonderful things)


How are any of the claims made up by pseudo-historians good?

Or pseudo-scientists (actually, especially this one, since can potentially fatally harm someone)?

(NB: I'm not actually for banning anything. I just don't think all ideas are wonderful things)


How are any of the claims made up by pseudo-historians good?

Or pseudo-scientists (actually, especially this one, since can potentially fatally harm someone)?

That's what people said when Galileo had his theories.

What about ones which create a romantic notion of the past with no basis in historical fact and effectively spread misinformation about a particular subject?

(Misinformation which is hard to correct I might add)
All thoughts and writings should be giving equal attention and scrutiny, even if you don't agree with them.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

Go through the list (compiled by a conservative panel) and see which ones you agree/disagree and why.

Naturally, all the more famous Communist and Evolution books are covered.Books don't hurt people...people hurt people. [/sarcasm]

What? The Bible wasn't in there????

1) Everything religious
2) Atlas Shrugged

Just saw the list. Oh... my... god. How backwards do you have to be to put "Origin of the Species" and "Descent of Man" on such a list? And "Unsafe at Any Speed"?! That book saved lives!

That's what people said when Galileo had his theories.

True. But his ideas were based on fact. I'm refering to quakery like "patent medecine" and stuff that parades itself as alternative medicine* which is not based on fact. Or even anything remotely realistic.

Or theories which pretend to be based on historical fact yet are effectively pulled out of the writers arse (best recent example I can think of this is Holy Blood and the Holy Grail) and twist what facts exist to fit the theory/agenda.



*Not saying that all alternative medicine is quakery. Just that quakery likes to call itself that.

All thoughts and writings should be giving equal attention and scrutiny, even if you don't agree with them.

Never said otherwise. I was just objecting to the idea that all ideas are good.

Books don't hurt people...people hurt people. [/sarcasm]

:D

Bravo. Fantastic.

Atlas Shrugged? Are you putting together a list of the most dangerous books, or a list of the most boring?

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

Go through the list (compiled by a conservative panel) and see which ones you agree/disagree and why.

Naturally, all the more famous Communist and Evolution books are covered.

Origin of the Species
by Charles Darwin
Score: 17

Yes, because the school of "thought" that every race and nationality of people on this planet came from two WHITE people in the heart of what is now modern day Iraq for chrissakes is just SOOOO much more believable.

How could they put Silent Spring on that list?! How has that book hurt anyone?!

(NB: I'm not actually for banning anything. I just don't think all ideas are wonderful things)


How are any of the claims made up by pseudo-historians good?

Or pseudo-scientists (actually, especially this one, since can potentially fatally harm someone)?

For the same reasons that real scientists often try to disprove their own theories. If you try to disprove it and can't, then it must be valid. If revisionist historians are allowed to put forth their view and genuine historians are brought out to refute their B.S. then it's a good thing.

It's a bad thing if either the truth, or the lies, are buried so far and so long that people forget them. The truth because of the harm that's done in its absence, the lies because they're sure to be embraced as new truth if brought back after they're forgotten.

For the same reasons that real scientists often try to disprove their own theories. If you try to disprove it and can't, then it must be valid. If revisionist historians are allowed to put forth their view and genuine historians are brought out to refute their B.S. then it's a good thing.

I'm not talking about revisionist historians. I'm talking about people with no training in history using faulty logic and made up facts to push an agenda. These people aren't historians by any stretch of the word. Just second rate hacks that can't tell their arse from their elbow.

There is a further problem, since these hacks (or 'revisionist historians' if you prefer, though the two are very different) aren't restrained with intellectual honesty, they don't need to base a lot of the writing on dry historical analysis. But can rather state their theory, run with it, and bolt 'facts' on as the need arises. (Again, I'm not calling for this stuff to be banned. I would like to make that explicit.) These are far more accessable, and sell more copies then academic work, which is why I think they are harmful, they perpetuate bad theories, historical lies, incorrect cliches and faulty 'research' (for want of a better word).

This problem is generally made worse since a lot of historians are content on sitting in their ivory towers and not try and correct these things (a few admirable attempts have been made, but those individuals are few and far between). Really though, this intellectual snobbery is just as bad. Genuine historians aren't generally 'brought out' to refute anything. And even when they do, they aren't listened to. Though it is a good thing when it happens.


But I wasn't refering to that. The original 'idea' was still bad, not all ideas are good.

It's a bad thing if either the truth, or the lies, are buried so far and so long that people forget them. The truth because of the harm that's done in its absence, the lies because they're sure to be embraced as new truth if brought back after they're forgotten.

I'm a bit confused (my problem, nearly 5am here and I've drunk a bit of wine)

Are you saying that it is good that the falsehoods exist in the consiousness because if they are forgotten they might be ressurected after the truth and widely seen as being true?

How could they put Silent Spring on that list?! How has that book hurt anyone?!
It hurt the people selling DDT didn't it? ;)

There's something frighteningly anti-intellectual about even making a list of "dangerous books".

[HEAVY sarcasm]Hey, the forgot to put "Fahrenheit 451" on the list[/HEAVY sarcasm]

As if my bookshelves weren't overflowing enough!

I'm wondering, though, why my favorite book by Freidrich Nietzsche didn't make the list (i.e., The Antichrist)? An oversight, I'm sure.