Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries

Human Events Online ^ | May 31, 2005 | Human Events

[hinterlander]

HUMAN EVENTS asked a panel of 15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders to help us compile a list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Each panelist nominated a number of titles and then voted on a ballot including all books nominated. A title received a score of 10 points for being listed No. 1 by one of our panelists, 9 points for being listed No. 2, etc. Appropriately, The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, earned the highest aggregate score and the No. 1 listing.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Obviously I like On Liberty

But Silent Spring has led to the property-grabbing, regulation-spawning "environmentalism" that I think is the biggest danger to liberty in the United States. If nothing else, it led to the banning of DDT, which has resulted in the return of Malaria and millions of deaths.

Put it this way: The Communist Manifesto is the root book of Communism and Mein Kampf is the root book of Nazism -- the #1 and #2 political killers in the 20th century. A good case could be made that radical environmentalism is the third largest political killer of the 20th century -- which would make Silent Spring, the root book of the radical environmentalist movement, is the #3 most harmful book.

[Aquinasfan]

the sad thing is that a lot of these books constitute parts of the core curriculem of many colleges.

A word to the wise.

They're getting my kids over my dead body.

[frgoff]

Since Darwin introduced a major ideological shift in man's view about himself, changing it from special creation of God to descendent of apes and nothing more than an animal whose sole purpose was reproduction, it is arguable that his books were hugely harmful.

[cryptical]

but then third-rate students and jocks have to get a degree in something.

It's call Communications.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "Read The Ominous Parallels by Peikoff..."

Oh, great. A reference to a book by an Ayn Rand disciple--sorry, 'a respected Objectivist thinker'. After slogging through 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'The Fountainhead', I tend to steer clear of Ayn Rand-related literature. Reading anything Randian is the intellectual equivalent of being force-fed a pound of guano-flavored cotton candy.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

of course the Koran needs honorable or is it un-honorable mention.

As a practical matter, the list was for 19th and 20th century books.

[kjam22]

Baby and Chidcare Book" by Benjamin Spock. It should rate at least 3rd. The handbook for the end of discipline and the word "No".

That's the one I was going to post... but you beat me to it.

[frgoff]

Radical individualism is just as dangerous to society and freedom as is lockstep uniformity and tyranny.

[dmz]

What, pray tell, is (as you spell it) Neitzchiesm? What are its fundamental tenets? Core beliefs? What book (or books) of Nietzsche's do you pull those from?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

And your post was wrong. You stated:

"In the Descent of Man Darwin "discussed perishing barbarians, the elimination of savages and the inevitable prospering of civilized nations," as reviewed in the June 2005 American Spectator."

If you had read The Descent of Man you would know that Darwin was not talking about eugenics. He was talking about one society being stronger than another and being able to wipe another out. In other words, the inability of primitive societies to defend themselves against more advanced. This is not a controversial idea. And it is not eugenics. Eugenics is anti-natural selection. Eugenics says that steps need to be taken to make sure that either the *best* in a society have a lot of children, or that the *inferior* in a society need to be persuaded/or forced to not propagate.
It is true that Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was the *founder* of eugenics, but his brand was the former, not the latter kind. He wanted the smartest and best achievers to have lots of children. To a limited extent, Darwin agreed with him. It wasn't until after 1900 and the adoption of Mendelian genetics that the negative variety of eugenics prospered. The whole program was against what Darwin had so passionately argued in his books; Darwin thought nature would do it's business and there was no need to interfere.

Mendelian genetics of course is no more responsible than Darwin for eugenics.

[P_A_I]

avg_freeper wrote:

On Liberty
by John Stuart Mill
Score: 18
Why is that on the list?

I've come to believe conservatives by and large fall into two groups: there are William Bennett and PJ O'Rourke types.

Some of the conservative thinkers polled in this exercise are probably within the Bennett camp and would see "On Liberty" as dangerous.

---

Good observation.

I'd add that the Bennett camp are the
"Authoritarian Personality" type.

Authoritarian Personality
Address:http://www.gossamer-wings.com/soc/Notes/race/tsld007.htm


O'Rourkes camp are libertarian types.

[Rembrandt_fan]

Nietszche owed no debt to Darwin. He scoffed at Darwin, ridiculed the whole notion. Do your homework before you make such blanket statements.

[frgoff]

It became billions of years not to satisfy the evolutionist but because of the discovery of radioactive decay.

Because, of course, we all know that all the radioactive elements in the Earth were created when the Earth was formed.

[Aquinasfan]

It could be that Mill justified an empire if it was benevolent and well meaning

I would put him on the list for his philosophical Utilitarianism and Nominalism, which laid the groundwork for our society's intellectual and moral relativism. The roots of Modernism go all the way back to Occam's proto-nominalism.

[kaylar]

"of course the Koran needs honorable or is it un-honorable mention."

As a practical matter, the list was for 19th and 20th century books.

OK, then: Abdullah Yusef Ali's The Meaning of the Holy Quran . This heavily footnoted (every line rates commentary)translation of the "holy" "noble" koran is one of the most popular versions of the koran for westerners (it's the one CAIR sends for free) and it is filled with some of the most hateful antisemitism (elaborating on the original).

[cryptical]

Bad ideas have bad consequences. Reading isn't always good. What you read is what matters.

I've found that reading what the other side believes only strengthens my own beliefs. Good ideas in a vacuum lead to a flaccid intellect. The ability to compare and contrast competing ideas and show why your ideology is correct is a fundamental skill that all children should be taught.

[Aquinasfan]

Certainly neither Marx, nor Hitler's books would have had the philosophical underpinnings they did except for Darwin's efforts.

And Neitzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil."

[kaylar]

Oh, and I forgot to add: He started and finished the "monumental" task of translating the koran for western readers in the first half of the 20th century.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

If you don't believe the earth is old that's your problem.

[Aquinasfan]

Even bad books are good.

And up is down.