Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries (Hey IndianaGreen!)

[Gman]

You're gonna love this!

-----------------

HUMAN EVENTS asked a panel of 15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders to help us compile a list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Each panelist nominated a number of titles and then voted on a ballot including all books nominated. A title received a score of 10 points for being listed No. 1 by one of our panelists, 9 points for being listed No. 2, etc. Appropriately, The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, earned the highest aggregate score and the No. 1 listing.

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

-----------------------

Posted for general knowledge as to more information of the kind of thinking we're fighting.

Most of the top 10 are very predictable, especially the top 3 and Das Kapital. But it's the honorable mentions that got my goat. Books like Freud's Introduction to Psychoanalysis, BF Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity and even Nader's Unsafe At Any Speed are just beyond my ability to understand just what they see as so harmful about them.

Have at 'em.

[Terran1212]

1. Darwin...

Origin of the Species
by Charles Darwin
Score: 17

LoL.

[BurtWorm]

12. I'm reading it now.

I would consider only the chapter on hybrids harmful, and then only if you're driving or operating heavy machinery.

[rkc3]

2. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring makes the mentionables list too.

Obviously, rush believes this is the manifesto for all eco-terrorists.

On edit - What's really funny is how they've treated John Dewey's book "Democracy and Education," disparaging the idea of teaching children how to think. See where a deficit of thinking skills got us - 8 years with a dumbass for president.

[NoPasaran]

8. I got a nasty paper cut reading that one

Those guys really do know what they're talking about.

[bloom]

19. Yes

Those were the two books that jumped out at me as well.

Unbelievable - against schools teaching about thinking and against Silent Spring. :eyes:

They must be from a different planet.

[meegbear]

3. I like this blurb ....

on 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.

So * is a follower of John Maynard Keynes?

[IrateCitizen]

26. Actually, yes... Bush is a military Keynesian...

However, Keynes' theories required a MASSIVE investment of cash from the government into the public sector in order to jump-start the economy in times of recession. FDR didn't really approach the scale of public investment Keynes suggested until the industrial mobilization of WWII.

Furthermore, true Keynesian economics would suggest that you invest money in things that have a true payback -- like infrastructure, schools, etc. And Keynes, if he had lived, would probably have adjusted his theories a bit further to fit evolving realities -- luckily, we had John Kenneth Galbraith to do it for him in his book "The Affluent Society".

[hfojvt]

38. somehow that is Keynes' fault?

Also, I cannot see why they put "Mein Kampf" on the list. The evils of Nazis really did not follow from millions of Germans reading that book. Same with Mao, the book did not cause the dictatorship.

Abraham Lincoln claimed that "Uncle Tom's Cabin" caused the Civil War, but that is arguable as is the ultimate value of the Civil War. Then again, nor do I feel like Marx deserves the blame for Stalin or any of the other supposedly Communist dictators of the 20th century. One could claim that Machiavelli's "The Prince" caused alot of trouble, but I am afraid that was an 18th century book, and again, I do not believe the book caused the power politics which it described.

I wonder if it was political pragmatism which kept conservatives from putting "The Book of Mormon" on the list. I would expect any realy "fundy" to be horrified by that book. But, after all, those are their political allies.

[UdoKier]

4. That is a wonderful reading list!

Every one of those is required reading! I'm ashamed to say I still have many gaps to fill, but thanks to the pigs for assembling this great list!

[BurtWorm]

5. Whenever I think of Human Events I think of that castrated freak

with the bizarre teeth who turns up as a talking head all over the cable shows.

:insert smiley shuddering in disgust:

[tx_dem41]

6. Can a book truly be harmful?

Or can only the interpretations/perceptions derived by the individual that reads it be harmful? Philosophically, yours....

[BurtWorm]

9. Only to a radical rightist.

[rkc3]

24. You mean like how they've interpreted the Bible to fit their

narrow-minded agenda?

[Nikia]

40. Not when read with critical thinking

I suppose that if most people automatically agreed with everything that they read, certain writings could be harmful. That is not how I read books though and that is not how books should be read. The author's arguements and point of view should be examined against what one already knows and values. That is why I do not understand why college students are upset about a certain book being required reading. College readings are not supposed to be about being brainwashed. They are about critical thinking and becoming knowledgable of influential ideas and criticisms.

[tx_dem41]

50. You got my point.

Thank you for responding. Unfortunately, in our modern society, critical thinking is a scarce resource.

[Journeyman]

7. Out of 30 books, I've read 12. . .

guess they'll move to declare my mind a sewer anyday soon.

[hfojvt]

41. some classics on that list

but I am afraid I have only read "The Population Bomb" and I have an MA in economics (without reading either Keynes or Marx (or Comte)in entirety), and I read quite a bit. I own a copy of Origin of Species and one of Das Kapital, but will I ever get around to reading them? I may have a copy of "The Feminine Mystique" too. (I used to sell books so I have many that I will never get around to reading, and I am not always sure what I have, but I did read most of Susan Faludi's "Backlash" before I donated it.)

[LiberalPersona]

10. Cool

I'm going to bookmark this and take the list next time I go to the library. Some of these sound like good reading.

[jobycom]

11. Did they advocate burning the books and their authors?

Books don't kill people, fascist conservatives kill people.

[ComerPerro]

13. They forgot Orwell's 1984, because it lays out for us

exactly how the neoconservatives are trying to sieze control.

And, they wouldn't want an informed population, would they?

[IndianaGreen]

45. They probably love the world Orwell painted in 1984

They want to be our Big Brother!

[ComerPerro]

46. Yeah but Orwell warned us

And that's why his book is dangerous

[KansDem]

14. Might I ask a stupid question?

Why are these books considered "harmful?" I read the descriptions and didn't find any I would consider "harmful" although I could see why a conservative might, although it would be more appropriate to believe that such books are "controversial" or "ripe for debate," not "harmful" (unless you threw one at somebody). Are the conservatives saying that society was "harmed" by the publication of these books (or ideas)?

For example:
6. Das Kapital
Author: Karl Marx
Publication date: 1867-1894
Score: 31
Summary: Marx died after publishing a first volume of this massive book, after which his benefactor Engels edited and published two additional volumes that Marx had drafted. Das Kapital forces the round peg of capitalism into the square hole of Marx’s materialistic theory of history, portraying capitalism as an ugly phase in the development of human society in which capitalists inevitably and amorally exploit labor by paying the cheapest possible wages to earn the greatest possible profits. Marx theorized that the inevitable eventual outcome would be global proletarian revolution. 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.

Isn't this going on now with outsourcing and moving jobs overseas?

[jobycom]

22. Hey, it made no sense when the Church banned Galileo or Copernicus, either

Conservatives consider any challenge to their beliefs to be a danger, probably because they lack the intellectual tools to combat those new ideas. When books like the conservative "Bell Curve" come out, liberal intellectuals have no problem pointing out logical flaws, non-supportive evidence, and internal inconsistencies. Republicans just spout something about "the Devil's work" and throw Bible phrases at them.

The strongest criticisms of Marx and Freud that I've seen have come from liberals, who can pick out flaws in their arguments without necessarily destroying their whole premise. Republicans just make silly lists and pretend they've said something profound. Who knows, in their tiny minds, maybe they really believe they are profound. Scary, but having just read the hate mail on the front page of DU, I think it likely
.

[JHB]

27. Shhh!

You're not supposed to notice!

[KansDem]

31. oh....

Mum's the word... :hide:

[Dogmudgeon]

15. Here's the FULL list

The Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries


1. The Communist Manifesto
   
2. Mein Kampf
   
3. Quotations from Chairman Mao
   
4. The Kinsey Report(s)
   
5. Democracy and Education (John Dewey)
   
6. Das Kapital
   
7. The Feminine Mystique (Betty Friedan)
   
8. The Course of Positive Philosophy (Auguste Comte)
   
9. Beyond Good and Evil (Nietzsche)
   
10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (Keynes)
    
    
    Honorable Mention
    
    
11. The Population Bomb (Ehrlich)
    
12. What Is To Be Done (Lenin)
    
13. Authoritarian Personality (Adorno)
    
14. On Liberty (John Stuart Mill) (?)
    
15. Beyond Freedom and Dignity (B.F. Skinner)
    
16. Reflections on Violence (Georges Sorel)
    
17. The Promise of American Life (Herbert Croly)
    
18. Origin of the Species (Charles Darwin)
    
19. Madness and Civilization (Michel Foucault)
    
20. Soviet Communism: A New Civilization (Sidney and Beatrice Webb)
    
21. Coming of Age in Samoa (Margaret Mead)
    
22. Unsafe at Any Speed (Ralph Nader)
    
23. Second Sex (Simone de Beauvoir)
    
24. Prison Notebooks (Antonio Gramsci)
    
25. Silent Spring (Rachel Carson)
    
26. Wretched of the Earth (Frantz Fanon)
    
27. Introduction to Psychoanalysis (Sigmund Freud)
    
28. The Greening of America (Charles Reich)
    
29. The Limits to Growth (The Club of Rome)
    
30. Descent of Man (Charles Darwin)
    

David Horowitz has had no comment so far.

--p!

[alarimer]

48. Why is Nader on there?

I mean the Corvair was an unsafe car and it exposed the car company for what it was- cutting safety to cut costs. We have seen it repeated since then as well. Maybe these people don't like the government actually requiring that vehicles be safe.

[BurtWorm]

16. I don't understand why they consider Mein Kampf "harmful"

when it's one of their bibles. I'm sure Ann Coulter would cry if I flushed it down the toilet in front of her.

[Pacifist Patriot]

17. Damn, I better get moving.

I haven't read most of those. What is my problem? If conservatives consider them harmful I would consider them must-reads.

I'm surprised Erich Fromm's work didn't get an honorable mention. His theories are extremely contrary to conservative "values."

[punpirate]

18. What's amazing is that...

... only the rabidly conservative would even think of compiling a list of "harmful" books (and a weird list, to boot--how come The Turner Diaries isn't up there with Mein Kampf, for instance?).

There are good books and bad books--there are good ideas and bad ideas, and ideas that lose favor over time in the face of new evidence. But "harmful?"

[Warpy]

20. Those dopes obviously never read those books

In fact, I'd be very skeptical that they'd ever read the Cliff's Notes versions. It is impossible to read those books and misunderstand them to the extent that the short description of each indicates. Their knowledge of the contents of those books are at least fifth hand, and probably farther than that from an original reader, and filtered through lifetimes of right wing cant.

"Mein Kampf," probably the only book that truly belongs on that list because of what it spawned 70 years ago when it was new and different, is a study in psychopathic logic. It remains an important book for that reason, if for no other.

The most ludicrous entry on the list was the last, Keynes's "General Theory." Keynesian economics remains the only theoretical construct that has actually worked the way it was supposed to. I don't suppose they've ever read enough history to realize that, though.

These people delight in waving their banner of "I'm IGNERNT, and I LIKE IT THAT WAY." The best thing we can do is give them what they deserve: ridicule and contempt.

[noiretextatique]

21. thanks...i need some new books

:hi:

[Waistdeep]

23. Ooh, ooh! Do they do music reviews?

I'd love to see their "Most Harmful Music of the 19th and 20th Centuries".

I bet John Cage and the Beatles make top 10.

[Fire Walk With Me]

43. Many music critics are accused of not listening to what they review

No different with books.

[Just Me]

25. OMFG!!! How totally weird!!!

*giggle* Talk about cognitive dissonance!!!! They reject books which describe themselves *LOL* and reject books that advocate delivering the freedom to think to others!!!

No freakin' wonder I can NOT identify with these people!!! :rofl:

They make it CLEAR that they are saturated in control-mongering and absolutely LOATHE free thought.

[donheld]

28. Consider the source

Those are actually very worthy reads.

[La Coliniere]

29. Silent Spring????

WTF? Have these people been been drinking DDT cocktails? Rachel Carson let the cat out of the bag. Run kitty run! Here comes Dr. Fristian!
Seriously, these people are truly out of their minds.
P.S. Carson's "The Sea Around Us" is still one of the best books ever written about innerspace, and that was 50 some years ago.

[RuleofLaw]

30. Karl Marx and Engels

What is funny is that without Marx's theory about capitalism, what he predicted, the collapse of the capitalist society, would have happened. Because of his work, governments realized that some control of the market place was necessary to avoid a revolution by the proletariat.

I would argue that Marx's work is what made the capitalistic system viable, because it pointed out all the flaws in a unregulated market economy.

Besides that, what a weird list.

[Just Me]

36. SHUSH YOU!!!

You are disturbing the management of information!!!!

Seriously though,...the list is as weird as its creators,...who obviously strive to BE creators,...and what AWFUL "gods" they are proving themselves to be.

[lectrobyte]

32. The Kinsey Report as number 4? What's wrong with these people?

I've read a lot of these books, and don't consider any book in itself as harmful. Even Mein Kampf, read as a historical document, or with the goal of gaining insight into the evil of it all, is worth a read. Anyway, if any of you have insight as to why the Kinsey Report is so near the top of their list, I'd like to hear it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. Because it allowed that women liked sex, too.

Too empowering for the frightened Freeps.

Nutjobs.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. Oooh, scary! Feminism! Environmentalism! Sex! The New Deal!

(as based on Keynes' economic theories) Concern for the poor! Consumer rights! All those horrible, horrible blights on human history. :sarcasm:

[eagler]

34. I find it ironic that Mein Kampf is second on the list considering the

strong right wing persuasion of the book. There is a multitude of similarities- military industrialism ,anti-homosexualality, warmongering attitude ,etc..

[SeveneightyWhoa]

44. Don't you know Hitler was a leftist?

They were the "National Socialists", after all! :7

(Believe it or not, I actually heard some douchebag make that "point" last week on Crossfire -- ironically enough, it was the publisher of this magazine!)

[Tansy_Gold]

35. Gee, the most "harmful" seem also to be among the most

"influential."

Might be these effing conservatives are just utterly, utterly TERRIFIED of change. They really wish everything had just stayed the way it was in, oh, 1345 or so.

[Just Me]

37. They would ruin some "beautiful minds",...

,...especially those that live in gluttony off of imposing upon, advantaging of, oppressing those who hurt NO ONE!!!!

Excuses, excuses, excuses for being the stingy, gluttonous, greedy, destructive disease that is killing off humanity and the earth.

GROSS!!!!

[McCamy Taylor]

39. Excellent reading list! Even the HItler should be scanned

because you can learn a lot about the present administration from Hitler's writing. Of course, we know that Mein Kamp was only thrown in for political correctness, and the guys who put this list together were not serious about banning that one. They would merely keep it from the hands of the masses and reserve it for the leaders.

Anyone who thinks that books are harmful but AK 47s help keep the peace has some serious problems with judgment and probably should seek psychiatric help.

[IndianaGreen]

42. Betty Friedan a "Stalinist Marxist"?

That's quite a list! Betty Friedan a "Stalinist Marxist." I read Coming of Age in Samoa by Margaret Mead. What's so evil about this book? Was it Dr. Mead's description of the sexual customs?

Rachel Carson's was among the first books to warn us about the death of the environment The "silent" refers to the birds dying because of the use of the pesticide DDT.

That's quite a list! We should read all of them!

BTW, I read Hitler's Mein Kampf when I was in high school. I wish more people had read that book before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1993. Hitler clearly outlined his racism, his hatred for Jews, and his designs for Europe. Any non-Nazi that read that book in early 1933 would not have been surprised by the Enabling Act, the concentration camps, the mass killings, and the war. I assure you that Churchill was not fooled by Hitler!

[Juice45]

47. Im curious

as to why Mein Kampf is less dangerous then the Communist Manifesto...or are these in any particular order?

On edit: "On Liberty" is another humorous one to me anyway

[FourStarDemocrat]

54. This is from a bunch of wackos, I wouldn't try to figure them out. nt

[depakid]

49. What a bizarre list

I don't see a coherent framework here- but then, of course- I serious doubt that the judges read most of these books. LOL!

[Mist]

51. Kinsey? Friedan? Carson? "dangerous"?!??

:wtf: These people really fear thinking! Or rather, they fear the rest of us thinking!

[alarcojon]

53. What, no Chomsky?

even as an honorable mention?

:eyes:

[FourStarDemocrat]

55. They hate pschoanalysis, science, feminism,

environmentalism, communism (mainly for its non-religiousity) ...basically they hate anything that doesn't advocate a paternalistic, bible thumping fundamentalist, wife-barefeet-and-pregnant way of life. They are absolutely against free-thought.

[Gman]

57. Good summary

Your post encapsulates their entire thought process well.

[Spider Jerusalem]

56. Harmful books? Um, right.

Ideas are only harmful to those who are afraid to think. Which is the essence of conservatism, it seems...

[hobbit709]

58. I must be real dangerous

I've read 7 of them plus Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Voltaire, Darwin and the Bible(all of it, not just the parts I want to agree with). I've also read tons of science fiction, history, philosophy, and even comic books.

[Jack Rabbit]

59. This is a hoot

The capsule reviews of the offending book show that what offends is not the presentation of the argument, but simply an assault on laissez-faire capitalism and the presumed right of Christians (but no one else) to use public funds to proselytize.

The review of Keynes' General Theory is particularly disingenuous. Borrow-and-spend was indeed used by Democrats, led by FDR, in a time of emergency. Whether the tax-and-spend Democratic policies that succeeded it were wise is something they could debate; however, to challenge the use of Roosevelt's measures in the face of the times is nothing less than an expression of preferring misery in order to keep their precious ideology pure. Moreover, in recent years, the borrow-and-spend mantra has been taken over by Republicans such as Reagan, Bush the Frat Boy and, to a lesser degree, Bush the Preppy. The difference is that there is no emergency, just an irrational desire to cut taxes on the upper income brackets. Fiscal discipline was achieved in the Clinton years and the budget deficit was retired and a surplus created. It has only been with Bush's returning to tax cut, borrow and spend that the deficit has returned. Of course, no one should expect these propagandists to point out little inconvenient facts such as those.

This would be a complete assault on the enlightenment had they not included on their list Mein Kampf, a dreadful book by any standards.

[whoneedstickets]

60. Let's compile our own list......

While conservatives are obviosly more inclined toward book banning, burning and browbeating, I wonder if we could generate a similar list from a liberal perspective? Here are a few offerings of the most dangerous books of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Mein Kampf (Hitler)
Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand)
The City and Man (Strauss)
Reflections on the Revolution in France (Burke)
On War (Von Clausewitz)
The Road to Serfdom (Hayek)
The Bell Curve (Herrnstein/Murray)
Monetarist Economics (Friedman)
The Conservative Mind (Kirk)
Closing of the American Mind (Bloom)

Please suggest others.