The 10 Most Harmful Books

[Special K 0]

Dude, shut up. You're not supposed to REALLY feed and clothe the poor. You're just supposed to hate homos.

[Guest Ding Chavez]

Dude, shut up. You're not supposed to REALLY feed and clothe the poor. You're just supposed to hate homos.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the Jerry Falwell/Fred Phelps version of The Bible.

[Jingus 0]

I've never read the Necronominicon, but i've heard it's just a bunch of stories and wasn't really intended to be like the "evil bible".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It doesn't really exist, H.P. Lovecraft made it up in his stories. But the concept is cool enough that plenty of people claim there is a "real Necronominicon" and there's been several different versions printed.

[Guest mtu]

So a right-wing group basically collects a Top 10 Leftist Credos list and shits on it.  Are we supposed to be surprised?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So.. Hitler's book is recommended by left wingers??? lol

[Guest Ding Chavez]

So a right-wing group basically collects a Top 10 Leftist Credos list and shits on it.  Are we supposed to be surprised?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So.. Hitler's book is recommended by left wingers??? lol

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only people who reccomend Hitler's books are Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and whack-jobs.

[Special K 0]

And those crazy fuckers who are interested in history.

[Guest Ding Chavez]

And those crazy fuckers who are interested in history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From a historical perspective, yes. From a societal perspective? Oh, hell no!

[Vyce 0]

I guess books can be dangerous in the spread of IDEAS. Depends on what you are threatend by. The comment about the bible is a good one considering it history but the real danger there has always been its readership.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If the Bible must be on the list, so must the Koran.

 

And it would have to be significantly HIGHER. I'd easily put it in the top 3.

 

Lastly, the Communist Manifesto is listed as almost TWICE as evil as Hitler (score of 74 to 41.) I refuse to believe that.

 

Why is that so unreasonable? Even as purely evil as Nazism is / was, Communism has a body account in the hundreds of MILLIONS. And that's just counting deaths, not the rampant and ceaseless violations of human rights.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

Just for a second, I'd like to remind everyone that Stalin wasn't a communist, he could swear it up and down, but he was a dictator through and through, and other than a few villages of hippies that came apart real fast, no true communist states have ever really existed. Communism looks real nice on paper(to some, at least), but it simply won't happen in the real world. Every single "communist state" that rose up in the 20th century was nothing but a poser.

Edited June 4, 2005 by Masked Man of Mystery

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

By the way, some Tom Clancy books should be added to the list of friggin' huge books, along with Les Miserables(or however that blasted book's name is spelled)

[Special K 0]

From a historical perspective, yes. From a societal perspective? Oh, hell no!

 

What do you mean by this? Examining how the Nazi party came into power from a societal perspective is interesting. Or did you just mean if you want to be a Nazi? Because then all you were saying is 'people that read Mein Kampf as an instruction booklet on how to be a Nazi are totally Nazis.' This is most likely true, but hardly enlightening.

 

That's like condemming fantasy books because only people who actively want to be wizards read them. (OK, some people do that but it's besides the point.)

[Guest mtu]

If the Bible must be on the list, so must the Koran.

It's not the book that's the problem... it's the reader. Words are a more powerful weapon than a gun...

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I guess books can be dangerous in the spread of IDEAS. Depends on what you are threatend by. The comment about the bible is a good one considering it history but the real danger there has always been its readership.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If the Bible must be on the list, so must the Koran.

 

And it would have to be significantly HIGHER. I'd easily put it in the top 3.

 

Lastly, the Communist Manifesto is listed as almost TWICE as evil as Hitler (score of 74 to 41.) I refuse to believe that.

 

Why is that so unreasonable? Even as purely evil as Nazism is / was, Communism has a body account in the hundreds of MILLIONS. And that's just counting deaths, not the rampant and ceaseless violations of human rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

The Koran on the list too? Sounds good to me.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I'd actually have the Koran higher than the Bible. They should both be on the list though.

[Carnival 0]

I've never read the Necronominicon, but i've heard it's just a bunch of stories and wasn't really intended to be like the "evil bible".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It doesn't really exist, H.P. Lovecraft made it up in his stories. But the concept is cool enough that plenty of people claim there is a "real Necronominicon" and there's been several different versions printed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Very interesting, thanks for clearing that up.

[AndrewTS 0]

No Turner Diaries? Aside from being quite the inflammatory, racist tract, it doubles as My First Terrorism Handbook.

[DerangedHermit 0]

I know who he is.  And 2 boards aren't enough to contain my bad jokes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh great......hundreds of illegimate kid Spiffs.

[SuperJerk 0]

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.

 

Apparently knowledge isn't being taught in schools anymore.

 

I'm not sure what they're beef with teaching skills is, though.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

#10 made me laugh.

 

On the other hand, check the links at the original page and read their Amazon URLs. If you decide to by Mein Kampf (or, for that matter, these other books you shouldn't even so much as come into contact with), then the conservative group gets a cut.

 

Lastly, the Communist Manifesto is listed as almost TWICE as evil as Hitler (score of 74 to 41.) I refuse to believe that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But the list of course, is not the 10 most evil books, but the 10 most harmful. I could write a book advocating the slaughter of any one who expresses the emotion of happiness, but the Communist Manifesto would STILL be more harmful? Why? Because it was a document with ideas that were not only bad, but were acted upon by a lot of people, causing great suffering in the process.

 

Also, to those who argue that communism has never existed in its true form (and I'm not suggesting they're wrong), should be prepared to admit that the exact same argument can be made with Capitalism and the market economy.

[SuperJerk 0]

Also, to those who argue that communism has never existed in its true form (and I'm not suggesting they're wrong), should be prepared to admit that the exact same argument can be made with Capitalism and the market economy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First of all, although I'm actually of the opinion that Communism is a harmful concept, it must be noted that Marx was not an actual advocate of Communism, but was making a (flawed) prediction based on his interpretation of history. In other words, Marx was not a Marxist.

 

Second, the reason capitalism has never existed in its purist form is because of trade restrictions put into place during the 19th and 20th centuries. Before the Progressive era of the early 20th century, capitalism was responsible for such deplorable practices as child labor and 16 hour works days. These things would not have been changed by the existence of free trade (if anything, they'd have been made worse). There's a reason why pure capitalism has never existed.

[snuffbox 0]

By the way, some Tom Clancy books should be added to the list of friggin' huge books, along with Les Miserables(or however that blasted book's name is spelled)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And Don Quixote.

 

This list is pretty retarded (and an embarrassment to anyone with just a modicum of education and empathy). Although I do agree with the Mein Kampf inclusion, dont know why it isnt number 1 though.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

Also, to those who argue that communism has never existed in its true form (and I'm not suggesting they're wrong), should be prepared to admit that the exact same argument can be made with Capitalism and the market economy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First of all, although I'm actually of the opinion that Communism is a harmful concept, it must be noted that Marx was not an actual advocate of Communism, but was making a (flawed) prediction based on his interpretation of history. In other words, Marx was not a Marxist.

 

Second, the reason capitalism has never existed in its purist form is because of trade restrictions put into place during the 19th and 20th centuries. Before the Progressive era of the early 20th century, capitalism was responsible for such deplorable practices as child labor and 16 hour works days. These things would not have been changed by the existence of free trade (if anything, they'd have been made worse). There's a reason why pure capitalism has never existed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is there evidence to suggest that Marx didn't agree with the key ideas that formulated communist ideology. It's true that Marx (and Engels) were more concerned with human history than politics, but they nevertheless founded the doctrine of scientific socialism as well as the starting the First International. To say that Marxist was not a Marxist is saying just that: That Marx does not endorse the ideas that Marx endorses.

 

And I strongly disagree with your argument on capitalism. Firstly, I think your getting Colonialism and Capitalism confused, both very different things. Secondly, the 19th Century was incredibly less democratic than today, with governments (and businesses) less accountable. Your argument is flawed in the simple fact that it has been the lowering of trade barriers in recent decades, and the liberalisation of economies in recent decades, that has LOWERED child labour and has reduced absolute poverty to the most liberalised nations. Technological advancement has meant a greater flow of information globally, and as a result, accountability has risen significantly.