What really are the ten most harmful books?

[Plekhanov]

This thread is obviously inspired by dr. what’s excellent thread link. The purpose of this thread is basically for the wonderful denizens of sd.net to compile a list of the books which have done the most harm.

Let’s have two categories

1. 19th and 20th century books like the fundie assholes did in theirs link.

2. Books of all time.

No need to come up with 10 books all by yourself just whatever you can manage.

My picks would be in no particular order:

19th & 20th Century

Communist Manifesto - Marx
The Genesis Flood - Henry Morris and John Whitcomb
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – the Okhranka
An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races - Gobineau

An Essay on the Principle of Population - Malthus is just outside the time period otherwise that may well have snuck in.

Don’t know if Mein Kampf should be on the list, sure it’s contents are unpleasant but would the world be significantly different if Hitler hadn’t written it?

Most harmful books of all time

The Bible
The Koran
The Torah – we wouldn’t have got the bible without it.
Guru Granth Sahib
Bhagavad Gita – nearest I could think of for a dominant Hindu text
The communist manifesto - Marx
95 Theses - Luther
The Pilgrim's Progress - John Bunyan

[salm]

The Harry Potter books. We have to burn this filth.

Seriously, it´s probably all the religious crap together because they´re the material that makes otherwise intelligent people turn into blithering idiots.

[Jew]

The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli. Published posthumously in 1532.

[Plekhanov]

The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli. Published posthumously in 1532.

What harm has that done? All he really did is write down what people had been doing for millenia

[Jew]

The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli. Published posthumously in 1532.

What harm has that done? All he really did is write down what people had been doing for millenia

It popularized the idea the expediency was not only effective, it was morally justified. Although Machiavelli himself would not agree that "the ends justify the means," that is how people understood The Prince. It justifies and legitimizes unethical acts committed in the quest for power.

Of course people had already been doing that since the dawn of time. But The Prince made it morally acceptable.

[Knife]

You really don't need to go much further than the bible *OT and NT* and the Koran as the most harmful, though it's possible that without them, something else would have been used as justification for blatent stupidity and all the evil acts done by those following the good books.

And while I agree with you the world would be different today without WWII, Mein Kampf did pretty much spell out all the bullshit Hitler wanted to do way before he did it. So it was harmful or atleast a warning of the madman to come.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Catcher in the Rye. Is there anything actually good this asshatted book ever contributed to society?

[Lord Zentei]

The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli. Published posthumously in 1532.

What harm has that done? All he really did is write down what people had been doing for millenia

It popularized the idea the expediency was not only effective, it was morally justified. Although Machiavelli himself would not agree that "the ends justify the means," that is how people understood The Prince. It justifies and legitimizes unethical acts committed in the quest for power.

Of course people had already been doing that since the dawn of time. But The Prince made it morally acceptable.

As far as I can see, it is not held to be morally acceptable, so the Prince has done no such thing. And I understand that some would rate the Prince as satire.

An Essay on the Principle of Population - Malthus

Why Malthus?

[Thinkmarble]

Communist Manifesto - Marx

First it's Marx and Engels, second it ain't a book.
Third, you can find it here
And fourth, can we see some justifications ?

@Lord Zentei
I would guess because he introduced the concept, that there are actually limits placed upon human consumption by nature.

[Fleet Admiral JD]

Communist Manifesto - Marx

First it's Marx and Engels, second it ain't a book.
Third, you can find it here
And fourth, can we see some justifications ?

Without it, Lenin wouldn't have had a basis to form Soviet Russia as a communist country, and Stalin may have never had his purges.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli. Published posthumously in 1532.

What harm has that done? All he really did is write down what people had been doing for millenia

It popularized the idea the expediency was not only effective, it was morally justified. Although Machiavelli himself would not agree that "the ends justify the means," that is how people understood The Prince. It justifies and legitimizes unethical acts committed in the quest for power.

Of course people had already been doing that since the dawn of time. But The Prince made it morally acceptable.

I'm not sure. The Prince has educating value. What you're saying implies that ignorance is bliss, in political science or otherwise. I would say otherwise. I mean just look what "machiavellian" means now. I definitely think it helps people who otherwise could not recognize the crimes commited in the name of realpolitik identify and declare it so.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Communist Manifesto - Marx

First it's Marx and Engels, second it ain't a book.
Third, you can find it here
And fourth, can we see some justifications ?

@Lord Zentei
I would guess because he introduced the concept, that there are actually limits placed upon human consumption by nature.

Because communism as based on Marx's theories and calls for revolution probably killed over one hundred million people in the twentieth century?

[Drunk Monkey]

To be fair Marx was more of a philosopher then a revolutionary, its just when people like the Bolsheviks use his ideas an excuse to cause a revolution, that creates an evil empire.

[Edi]

To be fair Marx was more of a philosopher then a revolutionary, its just when people like the Bolsheviks use his ideas an excuse to cause a revolution, that creates an evil empire.

To be even more fair, Marx was an asshat who had no fucking idea whatsoever of what he was talking about, so he should have kept his damned mouth shut.

Edi

[SAMAS]

Communist Manifesto - Marx

First it's Marx and Engels, second it ain't a book.
Third, you can find it here
And fourth, can we see some justifications ?

Without it, Lenin wouldn't have had a basis to form Soviet Russia as a communist country, and Stalin may have never had his purges.

Good point. Whatever it's original intent, it did cause that bit of harm, didn't it?

[Drunk Monkey]

To be fair Marx was more of a philosopher then a revolutionary, its just when people like the Bolsheviks use his ideas an excuse to cause a revolution, that creates an evil empire.

To be even more fair, Marx was an asshat who had no fucking idea whatsoever of what he was talking about, so he should have kept his damned mouth shut.

Edi

Freedom of speech buddy.

[Darth Wong]

I think it might be better to ask what are the most harmful popular ideologies, rather than asking what are the most harmful BOOKS. I don't believe that a book can cause harm; only popular movements can. After all, if a book itself could cause harm, then this would imply that book burning is actually a defensible practice.

[Lord Zentei]

To be fair Marx was more of a philosopher then a revolutionary, its just when people like the Bolsheviks use his ideas an excuse to cause a revolution, that creates an evil empire.

To be even more fair, Marx was an asshat who had no fucking idea whatsoever of what he was talking about, so he should have kept his damned mouth shut.

Edi

Freedom of speech buddy.

Marx did call for revolution.

[Drunk Monkey]

I think it might be better to ask what are the most harmful popular ideologies, rather than asking what are the most harmful BOOKS. I don't believe that a book can cause harm; only popular movements can. After all, if a book itself could cause harm, then this would imply that book burning is actually a defensible practice.

Fundamentalist Christianity

Fundamentalist Islam

Nazism

Leninist Communism

Klu Klux Klan membership

[Lord Zentei]

I think it might be better to ask what are the most harmful popular ideologies, rather than asking what are the most harmful BOOKS. I don't believe that a book can cause harm; only popular movements can. After all, if a book itself could cause harm, then this would imply that book burning is actually a defensible practice.

Particular books can be hugely influential to their ideologies, of course. OTOH, books that plug a particular ideology are only successful if they arrive at the right time for the right audience, so perhaps another book would simply have replaced it, though that is a bit difficult to say for sure. At least books can be representative of the particular aspects and/or incarnations of the ideologies that spawnes them and that they helped spawn.

As for ideologies, these can be quite broad, so it can be a bit hard to pin down specific ones.

A list might include general attitudes:

1) Anti-rationalism
2) Jingoism
3) Anti-elitism
4) Homophobia
5) Sexism

Or specific political/philosophical movements:

6) Communism
7) Fascism
Nazism
9) Anarchism

Or components thereof:

10) Collectivism
11) Revolutionary philosophy.

etc...

[Plekhanov]

You really don't need to go much further than the bible *OT and NT* and the Koran as the most harmful, though it's possible that without them, something else would have been used as justification for blatent stupidity and all the evil acts done by those following the good books.

They might well take the top 3 but that still leaves us 7 spots to fill, also why neglect the other significant religious & ideological texts?

And while I agree with you the world would be different today without WWII, Mein Kampf did pretty much spell out all the bullshit Hitler wanted to do way before he did it. So it was harmful or atleast a warning of the madman to come.

My point about Mein Kampf was that the book in itself did very little, the trouble was caused by it’s author, if he’d died immediately after he finished dictating it it’s unlikely that Mein Kampf would be of any significance.

Catcher in the Rye. Is there anything actually good this asshatted book ever contributed to society?

Well I really liked it, it would seem the guys behind GitS SAC season 1, which I also quite liked though nowhere near as much as Catcher in the Rye.

Why Malthus?

Because he was wrong but provided complacent governments with a rational and moral justification for not helping the starving.

Communist Manifesto - Marx

First it's Marx and Engels,

My apologies I have a tendency to forget Engels

second it ain't a book.

That’s odd it sure looked like a book when I got it from the library

Third, you can find it here
And fourth, can we see some justifications ?

Sure, it (along with the rest of Marx & Engel’s writings) disastrously misdirected socialism and took it up an ideological dead end which many well meaning people have yet to find their way out of.

It inspired the Bolsheviks & the fucked up policies of Lenin & Stalin which killed millions.

It inspired the SWP who are incredibly fucking annoying.

@Lord Zentei
I would guess because he introduced the concept, that there are actually limits placed upon human consumption by nature.

More that he encouraged the rich to feel virtuous for doing nothing to stop the poor dieing of starvation & malnutrition.

[Knife]

They might well take the top 3 but that still leaves us 7 spots to fill, also why neglect the other significant religious & ideological texts?

I neglect other religious texts because I don't recall many radical Hindu's marching in their version of Crusade. While each particular nation will have horrible leaders and violent era's, not every religion screams out jihad like Christians and Muslims.

My point about Mein Kampf was that the book in itself did very little, the trouble was caused by it’s author, if he’d died immediately after he finished dictating it it’s unlikely that Mein Kampf would be of any significance.

Ultimately, as DW pointed out, we're talking more about what people did with the ideology written in these books rather than the books themselves. Though watching the TV show 'The Shield' I've noted that a telephone book can cause harm in the hands of a corrupt cop.

Mein Kampf was Hitler's thoughts and notes on his goals, sort of speak. It's possible that he'd have done fucked up shit without writting it, but with it, he not only spread his vision around, but asshats hold it up today as relevant.

[Powerofgreyskull]

I'll have to go with Dianetics...

[Plekhanov]

I neglect other religious texts because I don't recall many radical Hindu's marching in their version of Crusade. While each particular nation will have horrible leaders and violent era's, not every religion screams out jihad like Christians and Muslims.

Plenty of people have been killed and oppressed in the names of relgions other than Christianity & Muslims. For Hinduism just look at the caste system it prop/s up in India also the activities of the BJP & a little while ago a little something called partition.

Ultimately, as DW pointed out, we're talking more about what people did with the ideology written in these books rather than the books themselves. Though watching the TV show 'The Shield' I've noted that a telephone book can cause harm in the hands of a corrupt cop.

I agree it’s ideologies & people blinded by them that do the harm, by asking which book is most harmful you are in effect asking which books inspired the most people to do terrible things.

Mein Kampf was Hitler's thoughts and notes on his goals, sort of speak. It's possible that he'd have done fucked up shit without writting it,

Of course Hitler would have done “fucked up shit without writting it” he did after dictate it when in prison for trying to lead a coup against the Weimar government.

but with it, he not only spread his vision around,

Mein Kampf on it’s own had relatively little to do with Hitler’s rise to power which had a lot more to do with his skills as a speech maker & political campaigner in conjunction with the whole WWI & great depression thing.

In comparison in das kapital & the rest of his writings Marx set out powerful ideas that inspired huge numbers of people long after his death.

but asshats hold it up today as relevant.

From the little I’ve read of it I suspect thats because they were racist assholes long before they read Mein Kampf & sought it out because of Hitler’s reputation. He may have been a fantastic orator but his writing is poor & doesn’t approach the power or persuasiveness of say Marx for example.

[Dooey Jo]

The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli. Published posthumously in 1532.

While the book says it's better for a ruler to kill than steal from people, the rulers who read this book did manage to create real nations with a united people. Later that united people would come to overthrow the ruler (in one way or another) and establish a democracy (this was probably not Machiavelli's intention though). It also helped further (if not outright starting) a philosophy apart from that of the Catholic Church. A more secular one, which would eventually lead to the Enlightenment. So the book has had both good and bad effects. It's certainly one of the most important books of all time, in any case.


And it's an intresting read