« Journalism Prof Wins Defamation Suit Against Blog Hosting Service in China | Main | This New Thing Call "Internet" »
August 6, 2006
Don't Read These Books!
According to the conservative Human Events, the ten most harmful books of the 19th and 20th century are:
- The Communist Manifesto
- Mein Kampf
- Quotations from Chairman Mao
- The Kinsey Report
- Democracy and Education
- Das Kapital
- The Feminine Mystique
- The Course of Positive Philosophy
- Beyond Good and Evil
- General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
Honorable Mentions include:
- The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich
- On Liberty by John Stuart Mill
- Beyond Freedom and Dignity by B.F. Skinner
- Reflections on Violence by Georges Sorel
- The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
- Madness and Civilization by Michel Foucault
- Coming of Age in Samoa by Margaret Mead
- Unsafe at Any Speed by Ralph Nader (???)
- Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir
- Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon
- Introduction to Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud
- The Greening of America by Charles Reich
- Descent of Man by Charles Darwin
Is a comment even necessary? [JH]
August 6, 2006 in Reviews | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/89778/5547887
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Don't Read These Books!:
» The 2006 World Series of Poor Scheduling from Modern Demagogue
I read goodly.
While the 20th century was a productive hundred years in terms of creating dangerous ideas, none of these books would crack a list for the most dangerous books of all time. No, the most prestigious spots on that list already belong to t [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 7, 2006 2:31:34 AM
» the ten most harmful books of the 19th and 20th century from TheSydneyHacker
[Read More]
Tracked on Aug 7, 2006 9:26:15 AM
» BOOKS from KOMME
Sophie Solomon, I Can Only Ask Why Ha. I've read seven of these "harmful books", including Honourable Mentions :... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 7, 2006 7:44:36 PM
» One McSausage At A Time from Prose Before Hos
You see the domain onedatatime.com, and you think One data time?. This could be interesting about DATA even. But youre wrong. Its not one data time, its one d at a time, and the d stands for dick. Yes, the... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 11, 2006 4:06:49 PM
Comments
I just made a search on google: the most read books time. And ended up here. Thanks for the list.
Posted by: J K | Jun 6, 2008 1:19:48 PM
dont they know that the more they hinder people from doing things, the more likely they are moved towards it?
Posted by: poulsbo florist | Mar 16, 2008 9:17:42 PM
I agree with #3 only because it was required not because of the actual content. The rest of this list is crap. How exactly can books be harmful? Do they publish them with built-in bombs? Do they emit a noxious gas, paralyzing anyone in a 400-foot radius upon opening? They're made of paper and ink, and for the most part they're completely biodegradable. Even if you do consider a book to be harmful based on its followers--The Communist Manifesto as #1?! With the majority of communist governments around today being completely corrupt, do you really think they took to heart *anything* that that book had to say?
Posted by: Usi | Sep 20, 2007 12:20:55 AM
I find it odd that "Mein Kampf" is on the list, seeing as how many of it's tactics and aims are currently a major part of the ideology of the bunch that put it on the list in the first place. I'd bet real money that if Hitler had not put his homicidal brand of anti-semitism into actual practice on such a grand scale, it would never have made this list -- and, in fact, would probably be on the "Top 10 'Must Read' list for all Conservatives".
P.S. In all the mentions of Dr. Seuss' books, I have yet to see any mention of "Fox in Socks" which quite proudly declares: "This Book is Dangerous!"
Posted by: Reynard | Aug 30, 2006 5:00:41 PM
My thanks to Human Evenets for publishing this list. I've been trying to decide what book I'm going to pick up next, and these books just took the top 10 places on my reading list.
Posted by: Jeff | Aug 20, 2006 1:24:04 AM
Oh, for fuck's sake.
Any moron with reading comprehension can see that the contents of the communist manifesto have little to nothing in common with the Soviet union and its policies (which came nearly a century later, especially if you're using stalin as a starting point for soviet atrocities..are you people seriously that easy to fool?). Marxism wasn't marxism ten years after 1848, let alone 70 years!
None of these books were harmful. They reflected the thoughts and social conditions of a particular era from the perspective of a particular group, none of which exist today in the same fashion as when the texts were written.
I find it rather hilarious that the readers here seem to think that the communist manifesto describes the soviet union and its policies despite the extraordinary time gap. Even before his death, marx disowned "marxism" and many of the groups that claimed it--which should at least make you think about what the communist manifesto really was; or at least tempt you to investigate.
And yet, you make fun of your conservative counterparts as though they're so much different than you. If you're going to demonize communists, at least make sure you know the whole scope of what it is you demonize. Most communists worldwide didn't even support the soviet union's atrocities at the time of its creation, let alone before or after.
How about actually investigating for a change instead of just recycling the things that you were told in elementary school, children? It won't hurt, I promise.
Posted by: ollapader | Aug 12, 2006 5:23:18 AM
thinking is very harmful to our present day conservative. Creating fear amongst the flock unites and fortifies unquestioned belief in the ideology. the power that this fear mongering creates allows for those in power to abuse the power. fascism!
Posted by: josephk | Aug 11, 2006 5:00:17 PM
I laughed at Keynes' being on that list, I wouldn't want to live in a world without that book.
Posted by: SmasH | Aug 11, 2006 7:01:59 AM
Once again my christian brothers want to enlighten us to the dangers of the written word.As if their pontification on religion ads any credence to there one sided biased look at God.There way or the highway,I think not.They wield the bible as if it were theirs alone.Who asked for their oppinion anyway.Keep the Bible in the pulpit not in the statehouse.
Posted by: Duffy | Aug 9, 2006 12:43:36 PM
I guess those who are educated will not be harmed by anything written by a common man, since man is allowed his free will to express his opinions on many subjects and happenings in life. However, we must remember that man is not infallable and what is written by him must be taken with a grain of salt or at the very least, common sense.
Posted by: Pat Hoey | Aug 8, 2006 8:45:33 PM
If I recall correctly the nazi's consolidated control for the reich by burning books that disagreed with their philosophy. The conservative right would like to do the same thing. The "dumbing down" of America is in full swing. Shortly Americans will be unfit for anything but meaningless menial work and consumption of corporate products if this trend continues. Anyone out there know how to build a clock? Tune up your own car? assemble and program your own computer? Thought not. Critical thought and comparative analysis are the underpinnings of any true democracy. If there are no choices there is no democracy. The reasons they made Socrates drink hemlock was that he asked hard questions that made people think. Unfortunately these alleged defenders of freedom would like to do the same.
Posted by: Yaha Tustunugee | Aug 8, 2006 2:40:08 PM
You gave an inaccurate spin to this article with your title.
It's NOT "DON'T READ THESE BOOKS" but "THESE BOOKS WERE HARMFUL TO HUMAN LIFE."
Nowhere in the original article does it even suggest "don't read these." And indeed, just taking the top-2, we can see that these books did lead to the deaths of millions of people (Stalanist Russia and Nazi Germany).
-Pie
Posted by: EatingPie | Aug 8, 2006 1:32:44 PM
I read Mein Kampf and Darwin when I was 16 for a history project on fascism, should I sue my school? The people that wrote that list have obviously never read Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, far more dangerous for the young mind! Also far more interesting.
Posted by: nic-wibble | Aug 8, 2006 9:03:45 AM
The best part of the original article is when, after writing the summary of "Beyond Good and Evil" they throw in "The Nazis loved Nietzsche." right at the end.
Posted by: reader | Aug 8, 2006 5:08:10 AM
"Posted by: john | Aug 7, 2006 12:19:17 PM
The original article was issued over a year ago. The publication is admitedly conservative. The people who generated the list were chosen for their conservatism. What did one expect to find? Why did it take so long for anyone else to take interest?"
John, the sudden storm of interest is because this page got linked to Fark.com, which means that in all likelihood it has seen a thousand times more hits in the past two days than it got in the entire year plus since it's original posting.
Posted by: Mike | Aug 8, 2006 4:45:10 AM
"Unsafe at any speed" harmful? Are you kidding me? Some guy says it would be a good idea to wear seat belts, and highway deaths are halved per capita. "Silent Spring" harmful? Somebody says it would be nice if we had some birds left and the rivers stop catching fire. Uh... I think I detect a little rabid conservative bias here. To my conservative friends I say, you don't believe in science? Then no science for you. Live without it and see how far you get.
Posted by: Antiflanders | Aug 7, 2006 11:06:22 PM
Hah. Not one single Dr. Seuss book up there, nor a mention of "Goodnight, Moon". I suppose the listmakers aren't worried about potential corruption of children--"Hop on Pop" is just filled with patricidal sentiments, and as for "Goodnight, Moon", teaching childrne the delusion of saying good night to inanimate objects is sure to lead us all into ruin!
Posted by: Lupa | Aug 7, 2006 10:38:51 PM
Two thoughts:
the world consists of a few evil people (many of whom write books), a lot of stupid people (a few of whom read them) and those who think like me (and the book I so discerningly read).
How about a list of the world's most beneficial books. My thoughts:-
Anything by Dr.Seuss.
Posted by: Paul Mason | Aug 7, 2006 10:37:51 PM
Regarding this post by ollj
"Yeah, seems about right to me. When you look at the unbelievable amount of harm inflicted on humanity by admirers of #1, #2, #3, and #6, you're talking about hundreds of millions of lives lost and entire nations and peoples destroyed by Communism and Fascism."
Hey! Don't forget how many deaths the Bible and the Koran have caused. Can we ban them too?
Posted by: Ron Hager | Aug 7, 2006 10:36:49 PM
"There is nothing quite so fulfilling as a brightly burning book." Deacon Mushrat Pogo comic strip
Posted by: F. J. Williams | Aug 7, 2006 10:15:32 PM
"There is nothing quite so fulfilling as a brightly burning book." Deacon Mushrat Pogo comic strip
Posted by: F. J. Williams | Aug 7, 2006 10:11:14 PM
I believe they missed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Posted by: Greg | Aug 7, 2006 8:28:08 PM
oiij if thats the case why not include the Bible how many have died for that text
Posted by: just? | Aug 7, 2006 8:08:17 PM
macro evolution.. a 150 year old theory that has never been observed nor has any fossil evidence ever been uncovered but millions of people are falling for the lie... i think darwin's books did just a little harm to our society and to science
Posted by: gmohamed | Aug 7, 2006 7:27:47 PM
"The Communist Manifesto" is actually a pretty good vaccine against Communist propaganda. Many people think the Communists want to create a society where all will be free and equal... well, their #1 handbook tells a very different story.
Posted by: uyl | Aug 7, 2006 7:04:22 PM
The most disturbing thing to me is the honorable mention of John Stuart Mill's book on liberty. This book is an argumant for a wide latitude of personal freedom and censors censorship. I can see why conservatives would find this book harmful, since it would remind americans of the values the country was founded on, leading them to question why the current administration is not honoring those values.
Posted by: JSM | Aug 7, 2006 6:03:48 PM
Why isnt the Bible and the Turner Diaries on there or the Anarchists Handbook this is just crap. More people have been harmed by whats in the Bible than any of the others combined. Darwin's books are dangerous?
Posted by: Mackeaveli | Aug 7, 2006 4:57:43 PM
you have to be kidding... are that simple minded to turn away any written works.. be they whatever. even the discussion of this humbles my very thoughts of personal freedoms..
Posted by: craig | Aug 7, 2006 4:39:52 PM
I have an honest question. Can someone explain why Michel Foucault's Madness and Civilization made honorable mention? I just don't see what makes it particularly "dangerous."
Posted by: AI | Aug 7, 2006 3:43:41 PM
The Communist Manifesto more dangerous than Mein Kampf and Darvin mentioned twice?
Bias my ass!
Posted by: ollj | Aug 7, 2006 3:04:25 PM
Yeah, seems about right to me. When you look at the unbelievable amount of harm inflicted on humanity by admirers of #1, #2, #3, and #6, you're talking about hundreds of millions of lives lost and entire nations and peoples destroyed by Communism and Fascism.
Posted by: 电容式压力变送器 | Aug 7, 2006 2:53:32 PM
Darwin's books have revolutionized science and how we look at the world. Ehlich's book as well changed the way we look at what we do to the world. They are, in my mind, and in most people's minds, tremendously positive books that have changed our world for the better.
Imagine a world that continued the rate of population increase of the 1960s and schools teaching 'God's hand' as an explanation for everything we can't see with our own eyes.
And for the record, everybody should be allowed to read anything they damn well please. Banning books is the practice of totalitarian governments. People should be warned beforehand 'communism removes the individual, and doesn't work anyways' and 'the author was a bad man who started a war that killed 25 million people', but telling someone to not read it under any circumstances is kind of scary. Back to your memory tube, Winston.
Posted by: Andy | Aug 7, 2006 2:49:25 PM
I nominate everything written by Dr. Phil, Deepak Chopra, Oprah, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore and Zane Grey (only because of the deadly purple prose, we have to protect the children afer all...lol).
Lighten up people or is it morons, I seem to be having trouble seeing the difference.
Posted by: fermatsenigma | Aug 7, 2006 2:29:38 PM
Where is Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", responsible for over 500,000,000 human deaths since the 1960's?
Posted by: Steve | Aug 7, 2006 2:07:41 PM
Where is Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", responsible for over 500,000,000 human deaths since the 1960's?
Posted by: Steve | Aug 7, 2006 2:05:45 PM
whatz a buk?
Posted by: dumb nutz | Aug 7, 2006 1:10:29 PM
What about Catcher in the Rye? 1984? Animal Farm?Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them?
Posted by: nikolai | Aug 7, 2006 12:28:15 PM
You people have got to get some perspective. A group like Human Events is of course going to list many of these books as being "harmful". Someone who holds traditionalist or conservative beliefs is going to argue every time that The Communist Manifesto and The Course of Positive philosophy are harmful books. It's no different than some kos kid or progressive 19 year old college student making a list of "harmful" books that would probably include Atlas Shrugged or The Wealth of Nations.
Was it "harmful" books or "BOOKS THAT SHOULD BE BANNED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH"?
And really, how did the comment thread get turned into a Christian bashing fest? From a list of harmful books to "Let's degrade all of the backward Christians"? Come on people. Simmer down now....
Posted by: Trevor | Aug 7, 2006 12:20:44 PM
"Harmful to whom?", we might ask. All of the books seem to have something in common; they question the status quo, and encourage the reader to do likewise.
Unfortunately, the original article doesn't allow feedback of this type.
Amusingly enough, the site has a popup for Ann Coulter's new book...
Posted by: john | Aug 7, 2006 12:19:17 PM
The original article was issued over a year ago. The publication is admitedly conservative. The people who generated the list were chosen for their conservatism. What did one expect to find? Why did it take so long for anyone else to take interest?
The information is useful in that it identifies the organizations associated with the conservatives. Who knew the president of Northwestern University had such a closed mind?
I think, however, that this is a very clever way of calling attention to the publication that published the list. Like Coulter, they are smart people who can create a smoke screen to divert attention from serious world issues to the so-called family values - money, sexuality and other cultural issues.
So they republish this list of "evil books"; give Coulter more pubicity, get the liberals all stirred up, get the conservatives all stirred up and we draw lines in the sand and choose sides. While the little people are fighting about trivia, the powerful are writing policy and wandering around the world starting wars.
Let's not allow ourselves to be distracted by this petty stuff. Even if these books were dangerous, they have already influenced the world. Focus on the hard stuff instead. Educate yourself and write your own book.
Posted by: Bemused | Aug 7, 2006 12:10:52 PM
Maybe this message is evil and you shouldn't read it. If words can be evil, the idea of having a list like this is as as bad as it gets.
Posted by: viva | Aug 7, 2006 11:43:16 AM
Ok, those are some of the driest books, perhaps, but there is no such things as a dangerous book, unless you consider the work of James Frey, that sociopath who lied to Oprah. :O
Posted by: Michelle | Aug 7, 2006 11:01:48 AM
Seriously, what is wrong with people?
For those of you whom have not had it made abundantly clear, the Bible and the Q'ran were written a long, long time ago. Long time. Really long time. Not kidding. Before you were all born even.
Second of all, for those of you whom have not had it made abundantly clear. A book, of and by itself, is not evil. Nor, to clarify even farther, is any knowledge contained therein. It is how that knowledge is used, which could be ascribed as being 'good' or 'evil'. Much like, say, a gun.
and lastly, the country was founded on the freedom to choose. What to read, what to think, and who to pray to. I find it ironic that the right wing Christian Conservatives whom are rabidly barking about protecting our freedoms from the stinking Muslim barbarian horde (paraphrasing.) are the ones whom are the first in line to take them away. Example, the Patriot Act, which stomps, stomps, stomps all over the Constitution. Illegal wiretapping. Lying about the reasons to invade Iraq. Hell, if I looked in the paper, I'm sure I could find many more examples of how the Christian Conservatives are protecting us from ourselves.
Apparently, all the country's problems are either now solved, or WILL BE SOLVED, if everybody would just stop reading those books.
Posted by: Random | Aug 7, 2006 10:52:52 AM
Unless they're telling us we CAN'T read them or banning them, I see no harm in having an opinion about them. That is, after all, a part of liberty.
Posted by: Ben Siders | Aug 7, 2006 9:44:06 AM
So I read all 20 books over my life time. Is something suppposed to happes, I'm waiting. I doubt that GW Bush read any of those 20 books. You know he just started a war & ready to start another one in one of those small country. Did'nt one of the author of one of those books you dont want me to read did the same thing? Enlighten me. Would the world have known how the French treated the Algierans if Frantz Fanon had not try to put the relationship in to focas? Are we the Greeks or are we living in Troy
Posted by: Frank E. Bryant | Aug 7, 2006 9:37:39 AM
Where is the slop by Ann Coulter? I guess the listmakers though her non sensical rants were literary gold
Posted by: Darren | Aug 7, 2006 9:32:55 AM
there is no such thing as an evil book, all books are informative about all subjects, and when society deems information evil or tries to ban information ranging all subjects it is a poor state that we live in. All persons should read books and make up their own mind. I don't needs some bible thumper telling me whats evil.
Posted by: Mau | Aug 7, 2006 9:05:49 AM
if you're dumb enoug to not be able handle reading a book without it changing your word, then you shouldn't be in a religion either. Learn to make your own decisions before you look for others who try to influence them.
Posted by: DC | Aug 7, 2006 9:05:17 AM
Wait, no Harry Potter?
Posted by: llDayo | Aug 7, 2006 8:26:55 AM
Where can i find these books? any url?
Posted by: Yahoo.com | Aug 7, 2006 7:41:00 AM
Woe unto those who call good evil and evil good. The Bible's teachings are the only way to live by.
Posted by: beg | Aug 7, 2006 7:18:38 AM
How did "Conservatives are Batshit Crazy" not make the list? ;)
Posted by: JP | Aug 7, 2006 6:58:47 AM
I'm surprised they didn't include Harry Potter. Lots of children running around thinking they're wizards - very dangerous!
Posted by: Tehl | Aug 7, 2006 6:54:46 AM
Where is Atlas Shrugged???!1!?
Posted by: moe | Aug 7, 2006 6:53:45 AM
for anyone who subscribes to "human events" and thinks books can be dangerous I would recommend "True Believer, thoughts on the nature of mass movements" by Eric Hoffer.
it might be the antidote for the disease from which you suffer or yet another dangerous book.
Posted by: brian | Aug 7, 2006 6:53:41 AM
You people all realize the sarcasm included in the article right? Right? That this was just making fun of the list?
I hope.
Posted by: Confused Person | Aug 7, 2006 6:18:54 AM
To the contrary of certain opinions there ARE books that are bad. Books that waste your time spouting nonsense, that delude, or deride sensible matters of fact are all BAD. An example of this are the pseudo science books ala Von Daniken. Take the time to think what an ACTUAL good book should do (as opposed to a mythical 'good book'). An actual good book should empower the reader. It should inspire them and teach them about REALITY not about some mythical afterlife. This list itself is an example of a BAD list. How much better a list of GOOD books is !
Posted by: lumatrix | Aug 7, 2006 5:58:58 AM
Allowing yourself to be offended by this is ignorant by itself. It was clearly listed that this is a -conservative- list, and in no way unbiased. This should be beheld with amusement. Haha. See me? I'm laughing at it. Hahaha.
Anyway, most of these books simply capitalized on preexisting sentiment, so I don't think the books themselves are harmful at all. It's the response. The Bible would be the most outstanding example of this... the pillar of morality and goodness, marred by idiots like middle age Catholics and the KKK. Please stop calling these people Christian! It is the utmost shame to be lumped together with those sorts of people... and I'm sure many Muslims feel the same way I do.
Posted by: Kobi | Aug 7, 2006 5:52:32 AM
Colonel Sanders wrote "Don't read these books? You must be joking."
Yes, he was joking. Look at it again--if you still can't see that, you need a refresher course in irony.
Posted by: Azzageddi | Aug 7, 2006 5:43:29 AM
OMFG,
Madness and Civilization by Michel Foucault,
The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir
Introduction to Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud
Descent of Man by Charles Darwin
HARMFUL??? What kind of fundamentalist psychos are these people?
Posted by: myself | Aug 7, 2006 5:37:23 AM
Posted by: C. Augusto Valdés | Aug 6, 2006 8:01:39 PM
"I think the #1 entry should be the Quran"
have you ever even seen a Quran in person numbnuts...in the first 60 pages it embraces both Christianity and Judaism...read a book
... Then it goes on to tell you that Jews and Christians are not to be trusted and any Muslim befriending either shall suffer the wrath of Allah!!
Posted by: Kafir | Aug 7, 2006 5:11:53 AM
Don't read these blogs:
Law Librarian Blog
Posted by: God | Aug 7, 2006 4:56:16 AM
ignorant blind adherence to any system is wrong....it doesnt matter if the book is 'the bible' or 'mein kampf', to read without understanding, or to only look at one viewpoint, is going to cause problems
Posted by: furterfan | Aug 7, 2006 4:28:20 AM
i cant even imagine what their problem with mill is. i really wish they had notes after their honorable mentions so i could find out.
Posted by: povj;lu | Aug 7, 2006 4:04:48 AM
It sounds as though a Christian Fundamentalist posted that list. Constantine's Propaganda on Paul's Cult of Christ (The Bible) should be the only number on that list. It was responsible for over 1,000 years of a dark age. We are no longer subject to the Inquisitions and the misery that followed the Catholic movement still tries to bite, but the poor Christian beasts seem to have lost their fangs!
Posted by: Jegason Diviant | Aug 7, 2006 3:42:52 AM
What kind of psycho group would not include "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? How conservative are these guys?!?!
Posted by: jeph | Aug 7, 2006 3:40:38 AM
Constantine's propaganda on Paul's Cult of Christ (The Bible) should be the only number on that list. The dense compilers of this "harmful" list should be ashamed of their thick ignorance. I choose enlightenment and knowledge over the darkness of Christian Fundamentalism, which is the largest functioning form of widespread Satanism in the world today.
Posted by: Jegason Diviant | Aug 7, 2006 3:32:53 AM
Last time I checked, the Inquisitions were over, the Renaissance had removed us from the darkness of Catholic propaganda and mankind had been freed to pursue the advancement and diffusion of knowledge. It pains me to see that there are still people in this world whose willful ignorance can be described as infinitely dense. Constantine's Bible of Paul's Cult of Christ is not only the most harmful collection of propaganda ever assembled, but is the root of most of the hatred and prejudice experienced within the last two millenia!
Posted by: Jegason Diviant | Aug 7, 2006 3:25:11 AM
The #1 book should be the bible?
The #1 book should the the Quran?
Call me crazy, but neither of them were written in the 19th or 20th century.
Posted by: lorigor | Aug 7, 2006 2:37:27 AM
Pseudo-intellectual law librarians (and their fawning followers) living in ivy covered glass towers shouldn't throw stones:
1) The Human Events list did NOT say DO NOT read them it merely listed the most damaging- perhaps uncritical readers who ascribe messages the authors never intended do damage by their own perversion of the original message- ie. Social Darwinism - ie burning books on a list - DOLTS
2) Those anti-religious illiterates who list the Bible or Q'ran in their responses should learn those were written b/4 the 19th Century hence not eligible to be listed
3) A LITTLE knowledge is a dangerous thing- sophomores- hence devotees of one or more of the books who didn't read opposing positions or who shut their minds to other positions would be dangerous. Words (of authors or speakers not merely catalogers) can inspire actions among those who are not merely catalogers, critics and effete "intellectuals". While the anti-religious bigots who attack the Bible (or Q'ran) are fools, even a blind squirrel can find a nut, in that the more widely read a book is, and the more inspirational its words are the greater effect for good or ill it can have. Religious texts have had a HUGE POSITIVE effect on history as well as the negative - duh. The books on the list on the contrary have arguably had no GOOD effect.
4) THOSE WHO CAN DO.
THOSE WHO CAN'T BECOME LAW LIBRARIANS
GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND ACTUALLY PRACTICE IN THE
REAL WORLD AND SEE HOW THEORIES PAN OUT
Posted by: MICHAEL HAUGHAN | Aug 7, 2006 2:34:11 AM
Just be happy they haven't banned these books yet.
Posted by: Kat | Aug 7, 2006 2:21:19 AM
How Laughable. These people think that science is harmful---("The Course in Positive Philosophy" by Compte urges that science not religion can bring about a better world) Well these gentlemen should get down on their knees and pray the next time they get an infection and see how far they get without antibiotics...or anything else that Compte's scientific revolution provided. Then there is "Democracy in Education" by Thomas Dewey, a book that created the notion of progressive education and experiential learning. I imagine the authors believe that democracy in the classroom and progress is harmful, that latin paradigms and rote memorization are the answer to all our educational issues. How perfectly medieval these people are! And The General Theory of Employment....etc...by John Maynard Keynes the economic theory that became the keystone for the New Deal, the Marshall Plan, the very set of ideas that brought America into the current position as "the" superpower in the world.... harmful? How doctrinaire, how "George W" you gentlemen are...the wealth and majesty of the "greatest generation" occurred under the watch of Keynsian economics...how is that even slightly harmful given the Great Depression, W.W. II, and the Cold War. You attribute too much value to Reagan's VOODOO---supply side economics. You forget how destructive an incompetant in the Whitehouse(Carter) can be. It is too early to even predict the effects of supply side economics. Besides with George W. being the new Carter let us just wait and see. The "Great Collapse" could be just around the corner. Grow up! There is no "trickle down" for us "little people." The filthy rich, whom you obviously promote shamefacedly, grow fat at the expense of a shrinking middle class that thrived under Keynes. And you call that a benefit, you dissers of democracy. Methinks that you tell the "Big Lie." Perhaps you adhere a little too much to Mein Kamph....and tell us with your second face that ohhh! that book is bad, when in fact all you preach is your own brand of fascism. Finally, why is feminism --along the lines of equal pay for equal work---harmful. I suppose that the fact that universities are currently bursting with women learning and doing wonders, while men are falling by the wayside means that there is a decline and fall of the American Family. I get it, woman should KNOW their place. Next you'll be advocating the wearing of Burqas. Well women belong in the house and the senate too.
Posted by: Publius | Aug 7, 2006 2:20:56 AM
wait, seriously? origin of the species? On Liberty?
this is a joke right?
Posted by: incredulous | Aug 7, 2006 2:14:36 AM
How about "Dianetics"?
Uh oh I think there are lawyers at my door.
Posted by: King Curt | Aug 7, 2006 2:08:02 AM
You have to remember that the "First Sin" involved gaining knowledge. That much being said, is it any surprise that these books are listed as harmful?
Posted by: PrairieGhost | Aug 7, 2006 1:46:24 AM
I think this list should be qualified as Western Human Events. How many people in Africa or Asia or any non-European or North American country were impacted by the Kinsey works?
As usual, the conservative viewpoint is extraordinarily narrow and self-centered.
Posted by: HDC | Aug 7, 2006 1:40:35 AM
So... Did the people who made the list read the books? Were they actually harmed by reading them? Did it change them somehow? Body parts fall off? Spontaneous compustion?
Posted by: HermitCrab | Aug 7, 2006 12:27:20 AM
Saying that this book or that should not be read is folly, it is then not the books one has to fear it is the peoples judgement that has made the list. Now I would trust the books that have stood the test of time rather than this persons opinion. The trick is don't belive everything you read, everything should be thought through and criticially examined, if this done no book can harm you. Work logically from first principles and scientific fact, and falsehood has no hold on you.
Posted by: OOJERKERPIV | Aug 7, 2006 12:21:14 AM
Ignorance causes the most harm. If we aren't supposed to read these, we'll just spiral down. What you do with the information gained is another thing.
and why the The Feminine Mystique?
Posted by: Cib | Aug 7, 2006 12:05:03 AM
The Bible and Torah beat all...
Have you even actually read the stuff that is in there?? like not what is just read at the church or temple.. but the whole thing... seriously crazy talk.. definally words which were changed by man and are no longer words of God. If you don't believe me.. just look at all the differences between all the copies and how different leaders have changed the Texts to get what they want.
Posted by: Bob Smith | Aug 6, 2006 11:31:31 PM
You NEED to read the original article this was based on. Their reasons for these books being the top 10 is more unbelievable than the books they chose:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=7591
Posted by: Travis | Aug 6, 2006 11:11:52 PM
Books didn't cause fascism or communism (Russian or Chinese). Political and social conditions of the times, directed by people seeking power, caused those movements. The books were an outgrowth of the systems, not the other way around. In other words, the books were symptoms, not the underlying disease.
The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, and Mao's little red book only, at most, provided condensation nuclei for ideas and forces already in action. Read Mein Kampf if you can. You're not going to become a Nazi. (you might give up reading for a while, though; it's gawdawful) Try getting through Das Kapital. (I'd recommend arranging for an intravenous caffeine drip) You're not going to suddenly embrace communism. Those books have no magical power to turn someone into what they are not.
In fact, if you look, you'll probably find a copy of each of them in your town library. Anyone who wants to read them ... can. Yet despite the ready availability of those "harmful" books, people are not reading them and then suddenly turning into fascists or communists or anything else.
To varying extents, the same is true of every book on the list. Books don't fall out of the sky and change societies. Societies on the cusp of change produce books that reflect those changes. It is not books we need fear; it is those who would shape our thoughts by denying us access to any ideas except their own. You know ... kind of like fascists and communists.
Posted by: Wanderer | Aug 6, 2006 11:00:46 PM
The great irony is that it's going to be "conservatives" and "religious folk" who lay the foundation of what will be the eventual destruction of mankind, most likely via nuclear war. If it happens through global warming or something much lesser, it would still be the same situation, just not as dramatic.
Posted by: Brian | Aug 6, 2006 11:00:41 PM
And are you going to explain why these books are so harmful?
Posted by: ZaBlanc | Aug 6, 2006 10:54:53 PM
Hey retards, it's books from the 19th and 20th centuries. Bible and Quran were already written.
Posted by: Brian | Aug 6, 2006 10:54:50 PM
"I think the #1 entry should be the Quran"
Well, what we can be sure of is that you're highly ignorant.
get a clue please, before posting your crap on the intarwebs of tubes.
Posted by: joe | Aug 6, 2006 10:52:13 PM
We should all decry various books as being harmful. Every book is probably offensive to someone- and so we can easily destroy all of these radical ideas (like terrorism) by simply outlawing all books. Let's outlaw reading and writing entirely! And talking in public. But not TV- because then there would be nothing to tell us who to vote into office to pass the book-hating legislation.
Posted by: Figgy Pudding | Aug 6, 2006 10:51:53 PM
Both the bible and the quoran are very good for society, for the most part. The lessons they teach are designed to help humanity.
both books keep most ppl on a straight path. the quoran doesnt actually breed violence, madmen do that themselves. same goes for the bible. you cant blame a book for what a man does, blame the man.
neither book deserves to be on this list, in fact my opinion says this list should be destroyed. or at least renamed "Books to read before you VOTE"
my opinion only, dont bash religion, bash zealots. they are the ones causing the violence, the same violence they claim to be helping end.
Posted by: Tovrin | Aug 6, 2006 10:46:01 PM
Yes, because reading Mein Kampf somehow promotes the ability to think (or is that the Communist Manifesto)? It might be worthwile to read the reasons why the original writer says these books needn't be read before spouting, in ignorance, the tripe that you see above.
Personally, I don't need to read Mein Kampf nor the Communist Manifesto to understand why one is inherently evil and the other unworkable. All you have to do is open your eyes and see the horrors that Hitler is responsible for (unless you are among the teeming mass that deny the existend of the Holocaust) or that Communism failed in the first country that openly practiced it (and seems to be failing in the others).
Posted by: Common Sense | Aug 6, 2006 10:45:51 PM
Actually, the books your "opposition" considers powerful, and supportive should be the number one books you DO read. Whether to develop an understanding of them, or to enable you to use their own words and concepts against them in debate or argument. Sadly, the neo-cons, religious right, what have you, consider argument and debate against the rules. The only rule is THEIR rule.
The fact of the matter is that Mein Kampf truely was written by a dangerous madman who was sadly allowed to develop into his power because of the inactions of "good 'men'" (to quote a great movie). Doesn't mean the books evil though, it does express a few interesting points, but mainly it shows alot about the mind of the author. The Communist Manifesto? Actually, hasn't caused too much damage. It was the perverted minds who "twisted" it under their own names (Mao, Stalin, etc.) who made it "evil" (And can you really call words, or a book, evil? Its the actions you draw from their interpretation that are evil)
Finally, to those who state that the Bible, or the Quran should be listed as number one, no. Again, you fall straight into the trap that the fools who created the original list fell. The works themselves are not evil, not directly. Especially not the Bible, or the Quran. Both teach tolerance, belief, faith, and so much more. Its HUMANITY which has perverted both works. Whether through their actions, or else eventual rewrites of the original bodies. Its no suprise. Those who win, write the histories. Hence, the changes throughout the years of both books. But no, the Islamists that now reign terror upon innocents don't practice from the true Quran, they practice from a perverted vision described to them by individuals drunk on their own dillusions of power and belief. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by: Chris | Aug 6, 2006 10:44:14 PM
Are “rbelkin” and “The Amish Avenger” the same person? If not, that was one heck of a coincidence around 8:00!
Oh, and Marxism was actually practiced well over a dozen and a half centuries before Das Kapital was written, or Karl Marx even born! He didn’t actually invent it. Guess who did?
- Acts 2:41–47
- Acts 4:31–37
- Acts 5:1–11 (continuation from the Acts 4 passage) — what God Himself did to people who didn't honestly participate in this system.
Posted by: J. Rea | Aug 6, 2006 10:43:49 PM
Um.. I think the poster is in agreement that this list is rediculous. He is just reposting the list.
While the list (and the overall concept) is wrong, I think it is a reflection of american soceity that everybody is jumping on poster with message of hate before paying attention to what he wront.
//Climbs off soapbox
Posted by: sgtcarrot | Aug 6, 2006 10:37:36 PM
what do you expect, the site has fvcking ann coulter ads...
Posted by: vlad | Aug 6, 2006 10:33:56 PM
Posted by: Ha Ha Drive By | Aug 6, 2006 10:30:00 PM
Hey, guys? Technically, neither the Bible nor the Quran are considered books written in the 19th or 20th century. Just thought I should point that out. Thanks for listening.
Posted by: anonymous | Aug 6, 2006 10:25:03 PM
Let me tell you my favorite bedtime story, general. Many moons ago the greatest nation on earth sent spies to a tiny country in a part of the world they wanted a foothold in. The spies take a look around and came back to tell their bosses what was what. The south they said is full of lazy, corrupt cowards who will run in terror at the first sign of trouble. But in the North the people are tough little peasant farmers, who will fight like hell for what they believe in. We should back them.
But they're communist said the bosses
Yes, said the spies. But not the kind we're worried about. The farmers are not bent on world domination like the Soviets. They want nothing more than piece to live thier lives and land to grow their crops and will stick by anyone who will grant them those things. We should back them.
But they're communist said the bosses
And fifteen years of bodybags, GIs on smack and massive domestic unreast and nothing to show for any of it later, the spies went to the bosses and said -- Nice going, assholes. A truly spectacular piece of self-buggery. Told you we should have backed the North.
But, said the bosses, they are communists.
The most terrifying word in their language. Not one in a thousand of them knows how to spell it.
Posted by: Dirka da Birka | Aug 6, 2006 10:12:52 PM
I was hoping for a few reasons behind the decisions. They just want me to take their word for it, I suppose. The artical was too short.
I really agree with Amish Avenger, by the way. Understanding the opposition is a good thing. Again, why take someone's word on it? Learn for yourself just how messed up Nazism was.
Posted by: thedarkjedi | Aug 6, 2006 10:05:34 PM
Wow, only a complete and utter idiot would believe that simply reading a book could be harmful.
It's what you choose to do with the knowledge you obtain from a book that is harmful.
For example, you guys keep mentioning the Bible being a harmful book. Meanwhile, I'm more concerned with the sick interpretations that some people seem to make from it...books don't make war. People do.
Posted by: tokyorose27 | Aug 6, 2006 10:05:27 PM
John Maynard Keynes is on this list? Sigmund Freud? On Liberty by John Stewart Mill!!!? The people who made this list are a bunch of ignorant morons. Nietzche, Darwin, Skinner, Nadar. It's like a joke or something.
Posted by: Joe | Aug 6, 2006 9:57:01 PM
As for people who think the Bible is so harmful, and Christians are dangerous, let's list some famous atheist/pagan "humanitarians".
Hitler
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Wait, maybe it isn't the bible that makes people do evil. Just maybe, it's something more deep rooted within humanity. But maybe that is another debate.
Posted by: John B | Aug 6, 2006 9:56:42 PM
Posted by sean:
"Posted by: C. Augusto Valdés | Aug 6, 2006 8:01:39 PM
"I think the #1 entry should be the Quran"
have you ever even seen a Quran in person numbnuts...in the first 60 pages it embraces both Christianity and Judaism...read a book
Posted by: sean | Aug 6, 2006 8:49:26 PM"
Sean, maybe you should read more than the first 60 pages before you decide who's numbnuts and who's not.
Posted by: G-Dub | Aug 6, 2006 9:47:27 PM
Col. Sanders has obviously read Mill's On Liberty... and is therefore too dangerous to be trusted! :-)
Posted by: Mill Scholar | Aug 6, 2006 9:26:13 PM
The Bible and Quran, regardless of what they have led to can't be on the list because it's a list of the "worst" books of the 19th and 20th Centuries.
On the other hand. Reading those books with the goal of understanding them is a worthwhile endeavour.
Posted by: Spaceman Spiff | Aug 6, 2006 9:25:16 PM
The headline is misleading. This is just the list of books a comittee of conservatives deemed most damaging to our society. The article itself does not advocate that the books be censored. It does not even imply that people should avoid reading them. That spin was put up by whoever posted this page. Read the original article and judge for yourself.
As a libertarian, I agree with many of these selections. I believe that the actions taken to implement the ideas contained in these books have been damaging to our nation. But, I still think that people should read them. They are important historical texts that influenced millions of lives. Besides that, they put your ideals to the test. That's a good thing. A truly active intellect will seek out alternative views and run them up against his/her own beliefs, even if it causes a few sleepless nights. That happened to me as I changed from Liberal to Libertarian. But, if you don't put your beliefs to the test, you're just a drone repeating the party line.
Posted by: Bob | Aug 6, 2006 9:15:07 PM
it is interesting when I've read all of those and I don't find them harmful. the bible should definately be up at number one, with any other religious text following after.
Posted by: Candelaria | Aug 6, 2006 9:12:25 PM
What's missing from the list are some good histories. History shows that many of our "modern" problems have been around for at least as long as there were historians to record and comment on those problems.
Posted by: Riley | Aug 6, 2006 9:10:01 PM
yes.
Posted by: ISMON | Aug 6, 2006 9:09:37 PM
If you want the most harmful book of all time, number 1 should be the bible.
Posted by: Truth | Aug 6, 2006 9:01:45 PM
Wow, this must be one of the Christian Fundimentalism websites, because I coulda sworn "The Origin of Species" was a critical peice of modern evolutionary science. But I guess if you can't explain it, just saying "God did it" counts as an answer. I'll remember that for my kids in school.
Posted by: Ghostalker | Aug 6, 2006 8:56:51 PM
ignoring books like the communist manifesto and mein komf for one moment... the kinsey report? feminine mystique? two books by darwin and freud too! these conservatives would have us ignore innate human sexuality, equal rights of man, evolution and the entire history of phychoanalasys. ignorance is bliss, but it's also fucking dumb.
Posted by: jason levin | Aug 6, 2006 8:53:59 PM
In terms of death and misery caused the Bible should be number 1 through 20
Posted by: fallwell | Aug 6, 2006 8:49:31 PM
Posted by: C. Augusto Valdés | Aug 6, 2006 8:01:39 PM
"I think the #1 entry should be the Quran"
have you ever even seen a Quran in person numbnuts...in the first 60 pages it embraces both Christianity and Judaism...read a book
Posted by: sean | Aug 6, 2006 8:49:26 PM
Why isn't the Bible on that list? That book has done more harm to humanity than any other book in existance.
Posted by: Keith | Aug 6, 2006 8:33:09 PM
Oh yeah, books are bad. M'kay, books are bad, don't read 'em, especially if you have to think... m'kay....
Posted by: Aaron | Aug 6, 2006 8:27:02 PM
And your point is what?
Posted by: gpb | Aug 6, 2006 8:13:11 PM
Though it is nice of them to post the 20+ books AN EDUCATED person should clearly read who wants to think on their own ...
Basically they are saying ... ooahhahh words ... scary ...
Posted by: rbelkin | Aug 6, 2006 8:10:00 PM
Yeah, seems about right to me. When you look at the unbelievable amount of harm inflicted on humanity by admirers of #1, #2, #3, and #6, you're talking about hundreds of millions of lives lost and entire nations and peoples destroyed by Communism and Fascism.
Posted by: The Amish Avenger | Aug 6, 2006 8:08:07 PM
Yeah, seems about right to me. When you take a close look at the harm wreaked by admirers of #1, #2, and #3, you're talking about hundreds of millions of human lives lost to Communism and Fascism and the complete and utter destruction of entire nations and peoples.
Posted by: The Amish Avenger | Aug 6, 2006 8:05:50 PM
There are no bad books, only books considered harmful by the opposition. Those books listed reflect a political position different to that of the submitter, I would recommend the contrary, read those books and understand the fundamentals of nazism, communism, socialism and imperialism. To truly have a formed opinion and be able to attack a position one must be able to understand it thoroughly.
Said that; you have just made my to-read list.
Posted by: C. Augusto Valdés | Aug 6, 2006 8:01:39 PM
I think the #1 entry should be the Quran
Posted by: Talent | Aug 6, 2006 7:55:24 PM
Let's burn them!!!!1!!
Posted by: somefarker | Aug 6, 2006 7:31:20 PM
fark fark fark.....
Posted by: Colonel Sanders | Aug 6, 2006 7:23:35 PM
Don't read these books? You must be joking.
Doesn't the intellectual learn through study and not by remaining ignorant? There is nothing personally harmful in reading any of these books.
I think it's those who demand that we take their word for this or that who are most harmful.
Law professors .... pffff.
Posted by: Charles Jillian | Aug 6, 2006 6:19:33 PM
