It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

National Conservative Weekly's Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th/20th centuries

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
How ironic!

Of the ten books listed and the three honorable mentions, I have 12 in my library (I can see I’m going to have to get ” The Course of Positive Philosophy" by Auguste Comte.

I would say that only four and a half of them are “dangerous” in that (1) They were widely read; and (2) they fostered dangerous things, like wars and misery in their wake:

“Kapital”, “Mein Kampf”, and ”Quotations” were all written by nuts whose views were adopted by others, and the result was entire nations and races bankrupt in money, morals, and lives. All three are now where they belong, the dustbin of history, but what a horrific legacy they left behind!

”Democracy and Education” was/is a truly evil book, which, as much as any other work, replaced education with indoctrination and, in my never-humble opinion, is the reason that the United States is now rapidly approaching third World status in matters of secondary education and overall stupidity of its citizenry.

Keynes’ is the “half” book; it popularized government intervention in finance and provided the theoretical justification for Roosevelt’s New Deal policies, and those policies’ bastard spawn. But, although it certainly expanded the hand of Big Government into your private life and mine, it at least didn’t create a nation of sheep like Dewey did; or a nation of corpses like Hitler, Marx, and Mao did.

Erlich’s “Bomb” is, in retrospect, silly; it didn’t happen, and it ended up making many environmentalists look like fools (which may or may not be a good thing). Nietzsche and Friedan, like Erlich, are simply silly.

Mead’s, Kinsey’s, and Darwin’s work may be counter to what conservatives think the world should be, but as far as I‘m concerned, they‘re all sound science.




posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
But are the books themselves dangerous? Are the ideas anything without the humans to behave in the manner prescribed?

The books themselves can't put anything into place, nor can the ideas themselves...

A decision is required on the part of the reader. It really is that simple in my opinion.

The reader is a valve, in an interpretive flow control role.

A devout Christian of denomination X might pick up a book on evolution and decide his faith is superior. He is capable of putting the book down and retaining his faith and/or religion, non-action, no foul, no harm. By the same token, he is capable of taking the information in that book and taking action, of any sort imaginable. He could kill a scientist, so enraged by the contrary dogma. He could convert and go to Africa to find the missing link, doesn't matter.

Decisions are made by men, not ideas. Many among us choose to let others do their deciding, or they relax into such a state out of combined apathy and inability to prioritize survival above pleasure.

It has nothing to do with the book, the idea.

It has everything to do with the interpretation, the pre-existing motives, the scheming, the compassion, all the multi-hued vagaries of morality. In my humble opinion, the death of personal responsibility heralds always the death of society at large.

Put the blame squarely where it belongs, on the men who make decisions. Ideas are just tools, just tools...



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Know what is sad? The number 2 MOST SOLD BOOK EVER!!!!!! Is this....

Quotations from Chairman Mao by Mao Zedong

Number one best selling of all time? Bible.

Which one has killed more people?

Also, number 10 is Valley of the Dogs.

So to anyone who likes to use the "Bible is best because it has sold more" are messed up cause they consider Quotations from Chairman Mao by Mao Zedong evil yet it is the number 2 most sold book, !EVER!

I am surprised they didn't include anything from MM, or Al Franken, or anyone else who doesn't worship the ground Bush slithers on.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
wyrde one says:


But are the books themselves dangerous? Are the ideas anything without the humans to behave in the manner prescribed?


You have a good point. Books, guns, nuclear weapons, quarter pounders with cheese, fast cars, cigarettes, what have you: none of them are inherently dangerous without a person using (or misusing) them.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
9. Beyond Good and Evil by Frederich Nietzsche
2. Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin

Anyone who can group these books together is, and I am sorry if anyone does, completely unrealistic. Mein Kampf and Origin fo the Species??? Darwin's book was one of the greatest achievements of man, truly. And these twits thinks its harmful??? Clear rational consideration of nature around us is harmful??? And BGandE??? I can understand that people who haven't read it, or who have only heard about it from others might think that its just a justification of criminal behaviour, but lets be honest, the big tyrants haven't used that book to justify themselves.

Where the hell does a conservative group, which supported non-interventionism and isolationism while Mein Kampf was being played out, get the balls to say that Neitche and Darwin are 'evil and dangerous'??? WTF??? If it wasn't for isolationist conservatives, then there wouldn't have been the extreme horror of WWI, WWII, and probably because of that all the horrors of the Soviet System, at least theset things wouldn't have been as extremely horrible. Where the hell do they get off?

This is complete b/s.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
[edit on 31-5-2005 by RANT]

Now it's more about stoping gays from getting married and getting boobies off TV. Economics are far less important than that..


Anyway, according to this list, some of the enemies of conservatism are as follows: Athesists, communists, feminists, scientists (excluding the ones that build weapons), inellectuals, and sociology. *sigh*


You forgot humanists-



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Well one way its dangerous is when the books present falsehoods as truths. I saw that Coming of Age in Somoa was an honorable mention. It was a complete agendized book for "free love" that completely mischaracterized the peoples of Somoa it was portraying.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

“Kapital”, “Mein Kampf”, and ”Quotations” were all written by nuts whose views were adopted by others, and the result was entire nations and races bankrupt in money, morals, and lives. All three are now where they belong, the dustbin of history, but what a horrific legacy they left behind!


I think this may be a bit inaccurate and in some ways unfair.

"Mein Kampf" and "Quotations" weren't actually adopted by others as such - they were the writings of the psychopaths themselves! If they hadn't been written it wouldn't have made much difference to the history of the world (that's why I would say they were not dangerous, but their authors were), as the authors would still have committed the horrors they did. Also both these books were esentially just ramblings rather than a blue-print for the world. Once the monsters who had written them died they rapidly became meaningless. An enormous number of people may have had a copy of "Quotations" (preferable to being thrown in jail) but most never read it.

"Kapital" on the other hand was written by someone in good faith, partly as a blue print to cast out all the injustices that Marx saw in the world. There are no references in his books to forming a Soviet empire, building the most repressive regime on earth, invading other countries and rule by personality cult. However it was taken up by other people after his death and was one of the works used to justify a disgusting regime. Marx was a peaceful man who would have been horrified at what became of his vision, to simply dismiss him as a "nut" is unfair, even if you disagree with all his ideas.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join