10 Most Harmful Books
Posted: 04 June 2005 05:27 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2005-05-23

TEN MOST HARMFUL BOOKS

In response to the similar list just published by the arch-Conservative journal Human Events,  here are my picks:

1.  Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf
2.  The Bible (both Old and New Testaments)
3.  The Koran (and Haddith)
4.  The Protocols of Zion
5.  The Communist Manifesto - Marx & Engels
6.  Quotations from Chairman Mao
7.  Eliphas Levy: l'Histoire de la Magie Haute
8.  Nostradamus: The Prophecies
9.  Martin Luther:  The Jews and their Lies
10. The Book of Mormon

And like the list in Human Events, here are some runners-up:

11. Marx: Das Kapital
12. Houston Stewart Chamberlain: Die Grundlagen des 19 Jahrhunderts
13. Morris & Whitcomb: The Genesis Flood
14. Richard Wagner: Jews and Music
15. Marquis de Sade "120 Days of Sodom"
16. L. Ron Hubbard: Dianetics
17. Billy Graham Peace with God
18. Bill O'Reilley: The No Spin Zone
19. Sean Hannity: Let Freedom Ring
20. Ann Coulter: Treason

Mark Starr

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 June 2005 11:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2005-06-09

Dear, Mark Starr

Could you please explain your reason for listing these particular books as being harmful? By what criteria do you judge the validity or merit of a book?

I’m guessing you are primarily going by the conviction that all religious ideas are harmful and all those who contribute to them are flawed in their reasoning.


J. S. Dubreuil

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 June 2005 06:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“J. S. Dubreuil”]Dear, Mark Starr

Could you please explain your reason for listing these particular books as being harmful? By what criteria do you judge the validity or merit of a book?

I’m guessing you are primarily going by the conviction that all religious ideas are harmful and all those who contribute to them are flawed in their reasoning.


J. S. Dubreuil

MS: Good guess.

There are other criteria I could use—such as the number of dead bodies they have left in their wake; the deceptions they have perpetrated on mankind, and the consequences of these deceptiions; their cancerous effect on such things as logic, science, rationality, honesty, goodwill, tolerance, and peace.

Other than that, I have no objections to these books.

Mark Starr

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2005 01:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Though I don’t agree with some of Mr. Starr’s ideas, I have to
  say he did a nice job here, IMO. Though I may be inclined to
  place books by people like the lovely miss coulter(no caps for her)
  on the same level as Mao and Marx. Two figures she would hardly
  find agreeable, no doubt. While the ideas(if they are even genuine) of a hellwitch like coulter MAY not lead(if only for want of
opportunity) to the specific human misery that the ideas of Marx
and Mao did, I think they could lead to far greater environmental/ecological calamity. Which is something
that affects us all. The only other book I would quibble
with is the Eliphas Levi one. While the ideas in this book
are indeed reprehensible, they are nothing more than the
preposterous product of a charlatan with an over-active
imagination. Starr seems to think they have instead inspired
legions of bloothirsty “devil-worshippers” (who don’t exist,atleast
in “legions”). Most occcultists and new agers laugh at Levi and
his silly writings. Beyond that, an impressive and fairly accurate
list, IMO.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2005 03:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2005-10-19

[quote author=“Anonymous”]Other than that, I have no objections to these books.

Mark Starr

C’mon,  surely you have stylistic objections to Mao’s “Little Red Book!”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2005 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  160
Joined  2005-11-29

Mark, why isn’t George Bush on the list?

Thanks,
Clarice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2006 09:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  280
Joined  2005-02-24

“Many of these are mainstream reading for college students and historians.”

Of course they are. They’d have to be. How can you combat ideas without knowing what those ideas are? Ever heard of critical thinking?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2006 07:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2006-01-22

OK, I can understand the knee jerk desire to include the bible on this list. There are certainly a dozen or more major and minor examples of slaughter committed by or for Christians. However, these were the acts of people, who committed them for political reasons much more often than for any reasons inspired by the bible.

To what do we attribute all of Western civilization? Without the Bible and Judeo-Christian culture, how does anyone imagine the world might have developed? Would the absence of the old and new testament have prevented the Babylonians or Persians or Huns or Mongols or Vikings from their not inconsiderable conquests and slaughters? If the Church had not taken over where the Roman Empire left off, who would have and would the quantity of carnage have been any less? Do we pretend that science would ever have been developed to its present level in a background where Judeo-Christian morality and regard for life did not allow it?

Some of you need to grow up and show some honest introspection.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 March 2006 06:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  97
Joined  2006-03-18

Does your list somehow make you feel as though you’ve saved someone from infecting his or her little mind with bad ideas?  This reminds me of Oprah gone berzerk.  Get over yourself.

I read Sam Harris’ book because I thought it would be full of things I disagreed with.  In fact, I found that I agreed with him most of the time.  It challenged my thinking.  I chose to read it all by myself and I didn’t consult anyone’s list.  Good thing, maybe there’s one out there that say’s it’s damaging.  I might have been saved!

Would it surprise you that I’ve also read Bill O’Reilly’s books?  I’ll bet you, the list-maker haven’t read most of the ones on your list, including that one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2006 03:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  259
Joined  2006-03-04

[quote author=“cocallag”]Mark, why isn’t George Bush on the list?

Thanks,
Clarice

I think because we’re not even sure he’s capable of reading a book, let alone writing one. wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2006 04:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  386
Joined  2006-04-12

I think this list needs to make room for the collected works of Leo Strauss, the godfather of the American neo-conservative movement.

It should also include at least one of the Social Darwinism or Eugenics people - perhaps Herbert Spencer or Madison Grant.  Eugenics gathered its earliest steam in America, long before Hitler came across it. According to American eugenicist and author of “The Case for Sterilization”, Leon Whitney, both he and Grant received personal thanks from Hitler. According to Whitney, Grant’s letter from Hitler included the statement that the Fuhrer considered Grant’s “The Passing of the Great Race” as his “Bible.”

The AG

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2006 04:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  386
Joined  2006-04-12

Here’s a surface comparison of the ideas of Grant and Hitler.

From “The Passing of the Great Race”:

[quote author=“Madison Grant”]Modern anthropology has demonstrated that racial lines are not only absolutely independent of both national and linguistic groupings, but that in many cases these racial lines cut through them at sharp angles and correspond closely with the divisions of social cleavage. The great lesson of the science of race is the immutability of somatological or bodily characters, with which is closely associated the immutability of psychical predispositions and impulses. This continuity of inheritance has a most important bearing on the theory of democracy and still more upon that of socialism, and those, engaged in social uplift and in revolutionary movements are consequently usually very intolerant of the limitations imposed by heredity.

Democratic theories of government in their modern form are based on dogmas of equality formulated some hundred and fifty years ago, and rest upon the assumption that environment and not heredity is the controlling factor in human development. Philanthropy and noble purpose dictated the doctrine expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the document which to-day constitutes the actual basis of American institutions. The men who wrote the words, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” were themselves the owners of slaves, and despised Indians as something less than human. Equality in their minds meant merely that they were just as good Englishmen as their brothers across the sea. The words “that all men are created equal” have since been subtly falsified by adding the word “free,” although no such expression is found in the original document, and the teachings based on these altered words in the American public schools of to-day would startle and amaze the men who formulated the Declaration.

The laws of nature operate with the same relentless and unchanging force in human affairs as in the phenomena of inanimate nature, and the basis of the government of man is now and always has been, and always will be, force and not sentiment, a truth demonstrated anew by the present world conflagration . . .


The negroes of the United States, while stationary, were not a serious drag on civilization until, in the last century, they were given the rights of citizenship and were incorporated in the body politic. These negroes brought with them no language or religion or customs of their own which persisted, but adopted all these elements of environment from the dominant race, taking the names of their masters just as to-day the German and Polish Jews are assuming American names. They came for the most part from the coasts of the Bight of Benin, but some of the later ones came from the southeast coast of Africa by way of Zanzibar. They were of various black tribes, but have been from the beginning saturated with white blood.

Looking at any group of negroes in America, it is easy to see that while they are all essentially negroes, whether coal black, brown, or yellow, the great majority of them have varying amounts of Nordic blood in them, which has modified their physical structure without transforming them in any way into white men. This miscegenation was, of course, a frightful disgrace to the dominant race, but its effect on the Nordics has been negligible, for the simple reason that it was confined to white men crossing with negro women, and not the reverse process, which would, of course, have resulted in the infusion of negro blood into the American stock.

From “Mein Kampf”:

Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people. North America, whose population consists in by far the largest part of Germanic elements who mixed but little with the lower colored peoples, shows a different humanity and culture from Central and South America, where the predominantly Latin immigrants often mixed with the aborigines on a large scale. By this one example, we can clearly and distinctly recognize the effect of racial mixture. The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.
The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following:
Lowering of the level of the higher race;

Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness.
To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator.
And as a sin this act is rewarded.
When man attempts to rebel against the iron logic of Nature, he comes into struggle with the principles to which he himself owes his existence as a man. And this attack I must lead to his own doom.

Here, of course, we encounter the objection of the modern pacifist, as truly Jewish in its effrontery as it is stupid! ‘Man’s role is to overcome Nature!’

Millions thoughtlessly parrot this Jewish nonsense and end up by really imagining that they themselves represent a kind of conqueror of Nature; though in this they dispose of no other weapon than an idea, and at that such a miserable one, that if it were true no world at all would be conceivable.

 

The AG

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 April 2006 10:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  386
Joined  2006-04-12

[quote author=“klangdon”]Does your list somehow make you feel as though you’ve saved someone from infecting his or her little mind with bad ideas?  This reminds me of Oprah gone berzerk.  Get over yourself.

Personally, I think every person of conscience should read the books on Mark’s list carefully along with studying the history that surrounds each one.  There is much to be learned by studying the ideas in these books, and the way they are used.

The AG

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2006 10:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2005-11-14

[quote author=“The Agnostic Gnostic”][quote author=“klangdon”]Does your list somehow make you feel as though you’ve saved someone from infecting his or her little mind with bad ideas?  This reminds me of Oprah gone berzerk.  Get over yourself.

Personally, I think every person of conscience should read the books on Mark’s list carefully along with studying the history that surrounds each one.  There is much to be learned by studying the ideas in these books, and the way they are used.

The AG

Personally, for about 4 dollars I bought a used copy of Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, and after reading it, I was able to grasp just how close we all are as humans to being manipulated by controlling regimes.

Marx did not say

Religion is the opiate of the masses

for nothing.

Religion dulls the senses and placates the mind.  It takes the raw edge off of reality.  Religion turns minds into complacent mush.

Hoffer encourages the reader to get serious about this thing called fanaticism or religious zeal.  The principles behind it, wherever it is found are dangerous, lulling and need to be constantly placed in check.  Some times I feel that the atheist is the only one willing to step up and be counted for this.

Noggin

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed