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.

[WOSG]

You greatly misunderstand Kant...

He is probably the last philosopher who attempted (and succeeded) in reconciling metaphysics (aka God) and reason.
Hence "Critique of pure reason". His work was so good (like Aquinas), that nobody topped it. Heck, nobody bothered.

Instead philosophers either accepted it or just rejected metaphysics (the positivists).

It was the *rationalists* - Descartes, then Rousseau - who were the forebears of European rationalist ideology, that created the French revolution 'idees' and socialism and the ills that fell from that.

[js1138]

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

This will surprise leftists that blame capitalism on Darwin. Darwin himself got natural selection from Adam Smith via various Scottish economists.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

"Harmful books? No. No harmful books. Harmful people."

Ah, really, ideas and books had *nothing* to do with the 100 million killed by communism, the 40 million killed by WWII that Hitler (author of Mein Kampf) started? Ideas are all 'okay' no matter the consequences of the actions of those who believe those ideas? ...

Combination of the two. I could probably find a lot of books that would result in as much evil as The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, were people to follow their precepts. However, it also takes skillful presentation and/or charismatic leadership before these ideas take root.

Hitler wouldn't have been much more than a street corner ranter without Mein Kampf. He would have been nothing more than a nutcase writer, were he not able to convince so many people, after he wrote it.

It takes both ideals and leadership to create such evil.

[nicollo]

I would add Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle."

Hear hear! And I'm glad to see Croly's The Promise of American Life on the list. A truly awful book -- and the very favorite of Harvard's Samuel Beer (who wrote "To Make a Nation.") For those who don't know, Croly penned the phrase "New Nationalism" and founded The New Republic.

If Croly's book is there, so, too, should be Charles Beard's Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, which was more influential than Croly's The Promise, and just as pernicious. Not a lot of good political science out of the Progressive Era. For an antidote, read Taft's Popular Government (amazon.com link)

[SittinYonder]

The unfortunate thing is that we can't determine whether an idea is harmful, typically, without first passing it through the test of time. Then, from the vantage point of looking at it as history, we can make a determination. Otherwise, it's all just philosophical and theoretical debate. Which is all the communist manifesto was back when Uncle Karl was beating his chest atop trash cans.

I have an idea that all books should be pass my inspection and I should have the final say as to whether or not they are suitable for the populace, and for this *service* I should be paid handsomely.

That idea may be harmful, but unless it's implemented then we really won't know.

But in sincerity, I'm not and haven't advocated book burnings, but I think books can be harmful.

[JohnnyZ]

People harm, books do not, and it is an abdication of personal responsibility to think otherwise.

There is also the responsibility to promote and defend God's truth.

If you promote a destructive ideology instead you have contributed a negative force to the world and are responsible for that.

Others have their own responsibility for adhering to and acting on the ideology you promote, but that does not absolve you of guilt.

[WOSG]

"Lots of bright people posit theories which turn out to be incorrect. I don't know that he was a great economist, but he was no dummy."

But his ideas were (a) wrong, and (b) used by politicians who twisted his ideas into excuses for very bad Government policies. It was right to place it on the list, probably the most important economics text in the early 20th century.

Yes, Keynes was very smart. Probably the smartest author on the list. Too bad he didnt write a better theory then!

[Hegewisch Dupa]

oh! You actually teared me up reminding me of the little guy!!!

By the way - - Silent Spring needs to move WAY up that list

[JohnnyZ]

So you are ok with the liberals acalling any books that are clearly pro-USA as harmful, right? Or are the only books that are "harmful" the ones disliked on FR?

Each has the right to his own opinion, to make his own judgment. But that doesn't make all judgments equally valid.

[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.
211 P_A_I



______________________________________




I've done some Googling around and I've found that a number of commentators have construed his writings as advocating full license for all manner of private sexual deviancy.

But since he never came out and said that, and since his book would have been resoundingly denounced if he had, I'd say that a lot of his comments were taken out of context by modern libertarians.

Apparently, modern social conservatives like Bennett and Bork have done the same.
244 inquest

---

Libertarians see Mills as he was. - For liberty.

Authoritarians see Mills as they want him [and libertarians] to be, - a libertine.

[BikerNYC]

Others have their own responsibility for adhering to and acting on the ideology you promote, but that does not absolve you of guilt.

So gun manufactures have a level of responsibility for the harm that some people who use guns cause? I completely disagree.

[Slings and Arrows]

I'd have kept Auguste Comte off the list. Sociology has had its distortions, but then third-rate students and jocks have to get a degree in something.

Graffiti found above toilet-paper dispensers at any university:

"Free sociology degrees: Take one!"

[TeenagedConservative]

I haven't read Nietsche, so you may be right. This does go against much of what I read on the man, however...

[Slings and Arrows]

http://www.hillsdale.edu

[WOSG]

That is a good list ...

http://sydneyline.com/Intercollegiate%20Review%20selection.htm


... and grat capsule reviews ... John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936)
This book did for Big Government what Rachel Carson's Silent Spring did for the tse-tse fly. ...

I like titling it "The Worst Books" rather than 'the most dangerous', since there are some here who seem to be reacting as if calling ideas 'dangerous' is a form of anti-intellectualism.

On the contrary. If you value ideas, you must value judging between the *good* and *true* ideas and the *wrong* and *false* ideas.

It's okay to give a book a review that says "phew, what a stinker!" even if it 150 years after the fact.

Okay ... so where is the list of 100 *BEST* books of the 20th century?

[Ditto]

How is it that a book that proposes a theory of biological adaptation through mutation causes harm? Where are the killing fields?

One could argue that the concept of Eugenics and "Social Darwinism" that emerged in the late 19th Century were a result of "Origin of the Species". The rise of Fascism as typified by Hitler and the concept of limiting the breeding potential of disfavored minorities championed by Sanger both relied on taking Darwin's narrow observations of biology, liberally mixing them with age-old racial hatred and human inclination to maximize self over others, and then projecting those ideas into the political and social realm as "enlightened science" did in fact lead to the deaths of many, many millions, be it in concentration camps or in abortion clincs.

I personally do not think Darwin or his book are "responsible" for either, any more than the Bible is responsible for Jim Jones. The blame belongs to those who misused it to achieve their own ends.

[WOSG]

"Mein kampf is a farily unstructured collection of rants. "

I hope this thought doesnt get me zotted, but my first thought when I read this, was: "well, who needs that, now that we have FR?"

"Worth reading if only to see what embittered envy and arrogance (with no apparrent accomplishment to back it up) can produce."

And when I read this, I'm thinking: Hitler - the Ward Churchill of his day ... without the tenure.

[tiamat]

100 BEST Books of the 20th Century

Just for curiosity's sake:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=100+best+books+of+the+20th+Century&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[hineybona]

I agree..No books are harmfull..it's who reads them and whats done with what is contained in books..Hitler also had a book list ..remember?

[wallcrawlr]

Darwins books are on the list.

Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info