10 Most Harmful books of the 19th and 20th century....

[rasoforos]

A friend sent me this link:

Aparently its from one of those websites that do the thinking for american conservatives, so they dont make any communist mistakes...:

link

Ok we find more or less expected books...

Marx and Mao put together with Hitler and of course everyone who doesnt want a Christian 'Taliban state' US, people who dare say that women are not made to just obey and give babies and people who discuss sex are there. Nothing unexpected... but...look at number 10....

....Kaynes....???

Kaynes is an economist. He is up there with Marx as the people who influenced economic policies the most. Being a capitalist its initially surprising that he is there...

...but thats not enough...

...Keynes is the father of 'Keynesian Economics'. He advocated that governments should run deficits in order to boost government spending and growth , his logic being that the growth will more than make up for the deficits later.

Keynesian theory works well when a nation is underdeveloped and it worked wonders post WW2 when the american Marshall plans rejuvenated Europe. However it doesnt work too well on developed economies but thats up for dispute.

Now [b] the US government now is practicing Keynesian Economics ( to a suicidical level that makes the country bankrupt without providing enough growth and will make the US owe money to every other bloody country in the planet...but thats not of the essence ). They Love Keynesian Economics, They Are Keynesian Economics, running deficits and increasing spending...

...so...

...if Dubya and his thugs swear by Keynes, and the conservatives support Dubya...then how is a book from Keynes harmful?

I m really puzzled...

Anyone to explain or discuss this?

[Don Corleone]

First off, I can't think, as I haven't been to the requisite website to do my thinking for me.

Second, you're over simplifying Keynes' views. Keynes was a demand-sider, in that government should tax the shit out of its people, because the government knows better how to spend the money then the people do. Putting the right amount of money on the demand side of the equation, in the form of governmental demand, could solve any equation.

Supply-siders aren't opposed to deficits per se. Reagen ran some huge ones and he was the epitome of supply side economics.

Finally, not all of us knuckle-dragging neanderthal conservatives are particularly happy with "W's" 'sailor on shore leave' approach to federal spending.

[Lazul]

ha! yeah right, its not like Marx and Engels are the only once that wrote communist books and such, they where the only one that managed to spread it in a good way. If they hadnt spread the communism, someone ells would have.

I think its harmfull to start and label books and texts as harmfull.

[Don Corleone]

If Dubya supports Keynes, and if Keynes supports taxing the crap out of people, then the Republican party truly has dissapeared from right under my feet. What happened to the ideals? The States Rights? the Small Government? The low taxes?

This is my point! Dubya is no Keynesian. Rasafaros is having some fun with exaggerating his views. He does need to learn to put the wallet back in his pocket though.

[Kagemusha]

In the list,there are good books and bad ones,but think what kind of world we would be living without these books?

[Don Corleone]

I find it humorous that Betty Friedan terrified these guys enough that "Feminine Mystique" made it in there. Yeah, those damn bra-burners are some of the most dangerous people in the past 200 years... I mean I'll grant she was a whackjob, but one of the most 10 dangerous books? This is policital correctness, from the right and I oppose that every bit as much as I do when it comes from the left.

[rasoforos]

This is my point! Dubya is no Keynesian. Rasafaros is having some fun with exaggerating his views. He does need to learn to put the wallet back in his pocket though.

Ok, Something not as Rasoforos but as an economist:

Keynes didnt advocate taxing the crap out of people. There are MANY keynesian and Neo-Keynesian theories based on his work with various supply side or demand side variables....


...You can have Keynesian economics by having a government tax people less so they invest more ( running deficits but keeping government spending low ) and getting growth from the private sector and consumer demand...

...Basically a significant point of Keynes is that you run deficits so you dont have to tax people who are allready pissed off and demoralised...



What Keynes said in a few words: ....Run deficits, throw money in the market like there is no tomorrow and thus improves people's expectations so they spend/invest.

There is practically no other developed government that practices Keynesian Economics more than the U.S who clearly use deficits to promote growth. Its as simple as that. In fact to other OECD country promotes keynesian growth as a major strategy atm.

The US run deficits, they tax less, they throw money in the market. Its Keynesian pure and simple...


...so why is Keynes evil? Is this some offshoot of conservatives that doesnt like Dubya somehow?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Comte, the product of a royalist Catholic family that survived the French Revolution, turned his back on his political and cultural heritage, announcing as a teenager, “I have naturally ceased to believe in God.” Later, in the six volumes of The Course of Positive Philosophy, he coined the term “sociology.” He did so while theorizing that the human mind had developed beyond “theology” (a belief that there is a God who governs the universe), through “metaphysics” (in this case defined as the French revolutionaries’ reliance on abstract assertions of “rights” without a God), to “positivism,” in which man alone, through scientific observation, could determine the way things ought to be.

Oh dear, this monument to that typical French inclination to prefer scientific observation over superstition made it to that list of dangerous books to.



Excellent.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh, and won't somebody finally teach me when to write to and when too?

Still confused about it.

[Xiahou]

Finally, not all of us knuckle-dragging neanderthal conservatives are particularly happy with "W's" 'sailor on shore leave' approach to federal spending.

Huh? Someone say my name?

[Azi Tohak]

(Pssst... Louis... only use too when you can also say, 'as well'. Your English is great, so if you can remember that, I think you will be fine. For example:

Oh dear, this monument to that typical French inclination to prefer scientific observation over superstition made it to that list of dangerous books to.

Should be

Oh dear, this monument to that typical French inclination to prefer scientific observation over superstition made it to that list of dangerous books too.

Or

Oh dear, this monument to that typical French inclination to prefer scientific observation over superstition made it to that list of dangerous books as well.

I hope that helps.)

Anyway, back to topic...

I'm confused about the Clinton generation:

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.

That was the babyboomers right? I'm confused

Azi

[JimBob]

Communist Mannifesto, yeah. Mein Kampf, yeah. Quotes of Mao, yeah. Feminine Mystique? Positivism? On Liberty? I think a few books have done worse things than those. Try anythin by L. Ron Hubbard

[Big_John]

wow.. hilarious. thanks for posting it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Thanks, Azi.

[Byzantine Prince]

What's this about the Nazis loving Nietzsche. As far as I have been informed Nietzsche wasn't exactly required reading at even philosophy school until after WWII.

What's harmful about Keynsian theories, they've basically protected the US economy from going into another depression!

What so bad about Introduction to Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud. It's the basis for modern psychiatry! What harm could come from helping people become sane?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Some really funny books in there.

I don't see how mein kampf did much harm, seems like that was hitler.

[PanzerJaeger]

Communist Mannifesto, yeah. Mein Kampf, yeah. Quotes of Mao, yeah. Feminine Mystique? Positivism? On Liberty? I think a few books have done worse things than those. Try anythin by L. Ron Hubbard

Try reading the books, not just the titles.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Try reading the books, not just the titles.

That could be dangerous, the are harmful books after all.

[Shahed]

A friend sent me this link:

Aparently its from one of those websites that do the thinking for american conservatives, so they dont make any communist mistakes...:

link

Ok we find more or less expected books...

Marx and Mao put together with Hitler and of course everyone who doesnt want a Christian 'Taliban state' US, people who dare say that women are not made to just obey and give babies and people who discuss sex are there. Nothing unexpected... but...look at number 10....

....Kaynes....???

Kaynes is an economist. He is up there with Marx as the people who influenced economic policies the most. Being a capitalist its initially surprising that he is there...

...but thats not enough...

...Keynes is the father of 'Keynesian Economics'. He advocated that governments should run deficits in order to boost government spending and growth , his logic being that the growth will more than make up for the deficits later.

Keynesian theory works well when a nation is underdeveloped and it worked wonders post WW2 when the american Marshall plans rejuvenated Europe. However it doesnt work too well on developed economies but thats up for dispute.

Now [b] the US government now is practicing Keynesian Economics ( to a suicidical level that makes the country bankrupt without providing enough growth and will make the US owe money to every other bloody country in the planet...but thats not of the essence ). They Love Keynesian Economics, They Are Keynesian Economics, running deficits and increasing spending...

...so...

...if Dubya and his thugs swear by Keynes, and the conservatives support Dubya...then how is a book from Keynes harmful?

I m really puzzled...

Anyone to explain or discuss this?

LOL ! Some of those are some of the most infleuntial works ever written.

[KafirChobee]

First, go back to the site where these ten damnable books was posted. Then, look around. Ann Coulter, the queen of heaven, is there - and so are all her little friends. None of these books are "damnable", except that in one manner or another they encouraged people to act upon their instincts. Mein Kampf, included - though it demonstrates the damnability of peoples instincts and that we can all be fooled.

Nearly thirty years ago, I had a stand-up for "persuasive speach" for University competition (started novice, went to junior level, and then I expanded it when I reached senior level - for those not in the know, that is where the real competitors reign - and the future leaders. 'Cept me of course)about the banning of books and the affect on a society that allows it. Quite simply, it is the denial of ideas, concepts and philosophies - though offensive to the "brilliant mind", they must be allowed to keep us honest in the endevour of truth (how ever one finds it, believes in it, or denies it).

Mein Kampf, is one of the worst written political books in history. The propogation of its merit to sell its ideals to a nation? Increadible! One must stand in awe of the ability of a national organization to sell its beliefs to the populace that later denied any association with them - amazing. Even more so that anyone could actually finish the damned thing - BORING. Even more than "The Essential Works of Lenin" (not John btw), which took me a year (and i still read 500 to 1,000 pages of crap; mostly, a day - especially here any more).

Mao? Actually, if you haven't read his little "Red book" - why not? Do you accept things presented to you at face value? Or, do you challenge them? It's poetry. It's about the common folk - for us outta the 50's we remember being told "There are starving children in China that would eat it - NOW EAT IT!" Mao was a great man, that took a starving nation and began its rise to superpower. His naiveity of how to do it, almost lost it for them - shame is our own leadership never grasped how use him against himself. Except, Kissenger, fo course - and even he was simply looking to attain simple economic and political goals (his imagination was limited).

Fact is, as far as the top 10 most hated books for the religious right - if they were honest (because, I'm pretty sure Mein Kampf is on Annies night stand, along with "The Prince", and the Kama Sutra), Huckleberry Fin has to be amongst them. After all, it is banned in no less than 6 (maybe 10) Red states. Imagine, a book written a hundred years ago being seen by people as being a threat?

I was taught, know thy enemy. The only way to do that is to read what he does, to understand why he believes as he does. Simple? No, not if you already accept that your beliefs are the only true blue thoughts that should be allowed.

Now, I know there will be those that take what I say out of context and attempt to sway those with weaker minds than they. Try not to let them.

BTW, I am the one that said "Only a moron" that Redix likes to quote - out of context of course. It is one of the cute tricks anyone that can't really support their ideals with uses. It is just one of those easy things. Like changing the subject when someone asks you a direct question about something you have done wrong.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Ok reality time.

The ten most harmful are:

1. Communist Manifesto
2. Das Kapital
3. Quotations from Chairman Mao
4. The German Ideology
5. Value, Price, and Profit
6. The State and Revolution
7. The Revolution Betrayed
8. Left Wing Communism, an Infintile Disorder
9. Their Morals and Ours
10. Stupid White Men, or (tied with) Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them (Al Franken).

[Hurin_Rules]

On Nietzsche and the Nazis: anyone who thinks that Nietzsche and the Nazis were intellectual cousins has not read any Nietzsche. Yes, the Nazis (mis)read him and used him; they also read and used the Bible. I don't hold Jesus responsible for Auschwitz.

Comte? Betty Freidan? Keynes? Dewey? These are the most harmful?

How about the Kinsey Report? Apparently, ultra-conservatives feel its harmful to know that people like sex. A rather sad comment on how much they're getting.

Note also that Darwin's Origin of Species is on the list of (dis)hounourable mentions. One gets the impression that if the list were extended back into previous centuries, Galileo would probably be on it as well. I guess anything that contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible--even when it is one of the most profound scientific discoveries made by humanity--is bad.

I find it hard to believe that Comte, Freidan, Keynes, Dewey, Kinsey and Darwin all together did more harm than the Protocols of the Elders of Sion.

That site was pretty hilarious. Thanks for the laughs. Good on you Don Corleone for not buying into that crap.

[ichi]

Clearly Dr Seuss is worse than any of these

Hop on Pop, or Yertle the Turtle, or I'm not going to get up today, or Green Eggs and Ham, and of course, the Cat in the Hat, all of these are subservise, mind-numbing books that are leading the decline of Western Civilization and could eventually cause a Muslim, or even worse, Hindu dominated world government.

Wake up people, before the Grinch steals your Christmas!

ichi

[Shahed]

Lmao

[Redleg]

Clearly Dr Seuss is worse than any of these

Hop on Pop, or Yertle the Turtle, or I'm not going to get up today, or Green Eggs and Ham, and of course, the Cat in the Hat, all of these are subservise, mind-numbing books that are leading the decline of Western Civilization and could eventually cause a Muslim, or even worse, Hindu dominated world government.

Wake up people, before the Grinch steals your Christmas!

ichi

And to think I always liked Green Eggs and Ham but then I spent to many years in the Army eating just that in the field.

Those MKT warming tins left a meal slightly green.

[monkian]

What's this about the Nazis loving Nietzsche. As far as I have been informed Nietzsche wasn't exactly required reading at even philosophy school until after WWII.

What's harmful about Keynsian theories, they've basically protected the US economy from going into another depression!

What so bad about Introduction to Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud. It's the basis for modern psychiatry! What harm could come from helping people become sane?

Nietzsche either invented or embelished the term Ubermensh - ' super race' or 'super being'


He believed such people shouldn't be confined to 'normal' people's laws and morals.

Serial killers love Nietsch

[Don Corleone]

How about the Kinsey Report? Apparently, ultra-conservatives feel its harmful to know that people like sex. A rather sad comment on how much they're getting.

Didn't Kinsey advocate sex between adults and children as possibly 'mutually beneficial'?

[Byzantine Prince]

Ubermensch means superman, not super race. There can only be one superman, and he will be the next step in our evolution from human to God. It has nothing to do with racism. People who say that either A)have never read the books, or B)Just aren't smart enough to comprehend language.

Serial killer love his eh? Care to say why? I haven't seen anywhere him saying that killing other is good.

[Adrian II]

Second, you're over simplifying Keynes' views. Keynes was a demand-sider, in that government should tax the shit out of its people, because the government knows better how to spend the money then the people do.

Who's simplifying now, Consigliere? The Baron of Tilton advocated government spending (at the cost of running a deficit, if need be) only as an anti-cyclical measure, that is: a remedy against recessions that came in cycles of about four years in those days (we're talking about the 'twenties and 'thirties). If recessions cause people to sit on their savings and industry to stop investing, the government must spend its way our of the recession for them. Keynes never advocated government spending or taxation fo their own sake, or anything remotely similar.

Supply-siders aren't opposed to deficits per se. Reagen ran some huge ones and he was the epitome of supply side economics.

Much of that consisted of military spending and resulted from political considerations, not from economic policy decisions.

[Don Corleone]

Who's simplifying now, Consigliere? The Baron of Tilton advocated government spending (at the cost of running a deficit, if need be) only as an anti-cyclical measure, that is: a remedy against recessions that came in cycles of about four years in those days (we're talking about the 'twenties and 'thirties). If recessions cause people to sit on their savings and industry to stop investing, the government must spend its way our of the recession for them. Keynes never advocated government spending or taxation fo their own sake, or anything remotely similar.Much of that consisted of military spending and resulted from political considerations, not from economic policy decisions.

Ever heard the term 'Voo-doo economics?' What exactly was George H.W. Bush referring to with this pejorative?

And unless you want to find yourself in some cement overshoes, please refrain from referring to me as consigliare. That is a lesser office and I find it derogatory. Should you care to be MY consigliare, I will consider your merits.