Posted on 05/16/2008 10:09:27 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
I think it is well established that the Tsar’s secret police produced the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
I can top that.
The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand. Released a plague of Randians upon society.
Actually the largest influence on Communism was hardly The Prince whether Stalin kept it on his nightstand or not. The rejection of Christianity by some and Judaism by others in Europe was what gave rise to Collectivism and Messianic Humanism which depended on the naive notion of the new man devoid of self desire as the Godhead.
The most influential book to my mind’s eye in Machiavelli’s era was written in Paris by an Englishman named Hobbes. But to be fair, The Prince was unique at the time because it was a roadmap not so much for realpolitk but for a new ruler versus one who had inherited power....something fairly revolutionary for the time...a little nuance that makes it immune to your casual dismissal with all due respect.
Do you have proof of that?
Wow. I guess this guy must think that religious types that believe in creation are far more dangerous to society than communists that kill millions through starvation, or genocide like Hitler advocated.
Won’t argue with a few of his choices, but his number one is off base.
I would agree. We read “The Prince” in our World Lit class in H.S., and again, some parts in our Humanities class.
As far as inspiring leaders - well, some could argue that to read these books - Mein Kampf, and The Communist Manifesto for example - might give someone insight as to how to fight AGAINST such things within the world. And, perhaps also give advance warning of things to come when certain people come on the “world stage” (thinking of Chavez here...).
Anyway, interesting list. Haven’t read any of them personally though except “The Prince”.
My sister-in-law actually gave me Dr. Spock’s book when I had my first child. I think I perhaps read one or two chapters, and proceeded to throw it out! LOL “Spock is a crock!”
No prejudice in this list /sarcasm
Was that a separate book from "Baby and Child Care", #4 on the list?
“10 Lists that Screwed Up The Readers”
... by blatantly manipulating them and leading them to the new public enemy #1 !!
Hitler, Sanger, Protocols, Marx, Behe?
BEHE? Oh, please!
Putting Behe at #1 is a philosophic CRIME and a SLIGHT that should put Ethan Clive ‘Osbadde’
at the TOP of the:
“TOP 10 PROPOGANDA PRODUCERS” list! This is nonsense!
I do not believe over 10 people have died while reading that #1 book...
... and that was while they were carrying it crossing the street!... Sanger? Hitler?
The content of those books and the statistical fallout in number of deaths is staggering, UNTIL you get to the #1.
What obvious misdirection! Good show!
If Darwin is correct then primates evolved to eventualy invent God.. since no primate before homo sapiens has ever been known reverence a deity.. Therefore NOT believing in God is a devolution and a primitive throwback Apeing of evolved intellience..
Believing in "God(s)" seems to be evolutionary development.. and morphing God into an intelligent designer might be a cutting edge evolutionary value added development.. That is if Darwin is correct.. of not then his yarn is creative fiction..
Fiction MUST BE logical, reality need not be logical at all..
Absolutely. I would also nominate The Population Bomb (1968) by Paul Ehrlich, which predicted famine and food rationing in the 1970s, total depletion of oil reserves by 1980 and possible human extinction before 2000. In a later work, Ehrlich actually sugggested the forcible sterilization of men in India (but not Red China) as a possible solution to over-population. Absurd as they seem today, these predictions were vastly influential at the time and Ehrlich remains a revered figure among eco-wackies (aka the genocide lobby) to this day.
That's was my first thought. Heck you could break it down into suras and have a contest to see which ones will fill the first ten spots.
I was just coming here to say that. This season, the big charity push is fighting malaria. I’m a little cynical about the fight against something we already know how to destroy with DDT.
Opps!
Looks like I gave you the wrong source. Or rather the right source to the wrong question.
Here's an article about the Okrana and the Protocols which is what I think you were asking for.
The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and Antisemitism
And here is a quote from the text:
Goedsche's plagiary of Joly's "Dialogues" soon found its way to Russia. It was translated into Russian in 1872, and a consolidation of the "council of representatives" under the name "Rabbi's Speech" appeared in Russian in 1891. These works no doubt furnished the Russian secret police (Okhrana) with a means with which to strengthen the position of the weak Czar Nicholas II and discredit the reforms of the liberals who sympathized with the Jews. During the Dreyfus case of 1893-1895, agents of the Okhrana in Paris redacted the earlier works of Joly and Goedsche into a new edition which they called the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". The manuscript of the Protocols was brought to Russia in 1895 and was printed privately in 1897.
I don't think it was just the rejection of Christianity but the perversion of some aspects it. Marx's theory of history looks to me like a secularization of the Christian heresy of millennialism.
The most influential book to my mind’s eye in Machiavelli’s era was written in Paris by an Englishman named Hobbes.
I agree. But you didn't say if you thought Leviathan was a positive or negative influence. I think Hobbes book has been one of the most damaging to liberty ever written.
At least spanking was a much more acceptable form of discipline against children back then. Spanking is such a no-no today, thanks to the insanity called political correctness.
I was waiting for the “Cat in the hat” at #1.
To make some room on the list for these new titles; I suggest that John Dewey's works do not belong. Dewey has been woefully misinterpreted, or misrepresented by many “educators” with an agenda — but, that should not reflect on Dewey. The author of the article seems to be condemning those “educators” by firing on Dewey.
Dewey was a strong proponent of “learning by doing” & was consequently a major influence for generations of high-school shop teachers (of which, I was one for a few years). He stood for pragmatism, and an empirical approach — the exact opposite of the postmodern crap that the author seems to want to tag him with. The “progressive” education that Dewey promoted would lead to real progress in the real world.
Prior to Dewey students were taught largely by rote — they were required to memorize “facts”. Well, these “facts” are subject to change in the real world. The facts change whenever empirical evidence shows they were wrong. Most of the science “facts” taught in 1916 have either been proved wrong, or greatly revised. What Dewey advocated was completely different from post-modernism, which is based on the notion that there are no objective facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.