Sunday, June 19, 2005

You Bring the Torches and Gasoline, I'll Bring the Popcron

Some idiots who like to fancy themselves as intellectuals have produced a list of "the most dangerous books." Their top 10 dangerous books includes:

(not in the order the present them)

You can see the list on Bede's blog

(1)Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx.
(2) Das Capital, ___________.
(3) Mine Komph, Adolf Hitler
(4) Quotations of Chairman Mao, Chairman Mao.
(5) Feminine Mystique, Betty Freedan.
(6) Kensey Report, Alfred Kensey
(7) Democracy and Education, John Dewey.
(8) Beyond Good and Evil, Frederick Neitzsche
(9) Course of Philosophy, August Compte.
(10)General Theory of Employment, John Maynard Keynes.

The very idea of producing a list of "dangerous books" is in itself objectionable, a bully tactic, and dangerous. It opens the door to censorship, condemns academic freedom, and sets up the inevitable next step, book burning. This is true regardless of the content of the books, and we should put a stop to it. we should demand that petty dictatorships not be allowed to interior with our intellectual freedoms.

The list of geniuses who prostituted their academic degrees to pull of this travesty is as follows:

This is in the electronic mag. Human Events online

"These 15 scholars and public policy leaders served as judges in selecting the Ten Most Harmful Books."

Arnold Beichman
Research Fellow
Hoover Institution

Prof. Brad Birzer
Hillsdale College

Harry Crocker
Vice President & Executive Editor
Regnery Publishing, Inc.

Prof. Marshall DeRosa
Florida Atlantic University

Dr. Don Devine
Second Vice Chairman
American Conservative Union

Prof. Robert George
Princeton University

Prof. Paul Gottfried
Elizabethtown College

Prof. William Anthony Hay
Mississippi State University

Herb London
President
Hudson Institute

Prof. Mark Malvasi
Randolph-Macon College

Douglas Minson
Associate Rector
The Witherspoon Fellowships

Prof. Mark Molesky


Each one of the entries is a classic of the right-wing's hate list of human thought. Fist, Mine Komph is there because the long standing association the right wing has tried to draw between Hitler and the left. They've been embarrassed abbot their loss since W.W.II and have tried repeatedly to identify Hitler with the left and with communism. Nothing could be further from the thrush. The Nazi brand of socialism at the time of its inception was called "right wing socialism" and it was listed with the second International as a product of the right. Every other work on this list is bonified a bulwark, a hallmark of the left/liberal thinking since the enligthement., except this one book. It's like they are saying "Ok let's through Hitler back, they can have him." But it's also like saying all the other books and ideas and policies of the left are linked with Hitler.

It's a shame and a scandal that they include Kenyes.It shows the real intolerance and pure hatred of the right wing. Nothing could be more legitimate than Keynes. His policies saved the country in the depression, they pure liberalism at it's most democratic and have nothing to do with Marxism or anything else that would destroy the capitalist gold mine these "go along get along types" cling to. But Keynes is on the danger list because his policies made right winners and conservatives pay more taxes; the great evil that has befallen humanity, the ever dreaded taxes! Making a rich guy pay taxes is the same as gassing six million Jews!

I might disagree with almost every work on the list. I agree that communism was a phrase and totally oppose it's anti-God spin, which was it's true undoing. But nothing justifies having such a list in the first place. Why not have a "disagreement" list? Why not try to be more fair about what you put on the "extreme" list. But a "dangerous book list" and so politically weighted, is a danger in itself.

Agust Compete is on the list because right wingers's hate sociology and social science. Right wingers want to believe that all human behavior is motive by ideals, by their ideals, except the behavior of the enemy left is motivated by the exact opposite, anti-ideals. They can't accept a science that would predict human behavior and would prove that people do things for reasons of socialization and not ideology. They love ideology. Basically right wingers are ideology addicts, they are addicted to it just like juncoes on Heroin. But more important, social sciences told us that people can't help what they do. Right wing thinking wants to blame humans for their total depravity and punish them with poverty for their lack of good morals and sound ecumenic beliefs (sound economic beliefs i.e. "let me get rig without any limits on my acquisitive nature"). Actually, I don't agree with Complete, and I dot' like him that much. I read him French when I was learning that language as my doctoral requirement. he's very easy to read, and I found amazingly enough that he had a strong belief in the human spirit. But to include him on a list with Hitler is insanity.

The political rape of the church will not go away. That's exactly what it is. The political rape of the church!

16 comments:

J.L. Hinman said...

Stoupwad

J.L. Hinman said...

I can lose weight, you will still be stupid.

J.L. Hinman said...

you don't know shit abotu econimics. You dont' shit about Keynes. I know more in my discarded garabe than you know in your stupid fucked up brain.

What kind of an idiot can't see that i'm putting the other guys down for making such of publicantion. I'm not linking Hitler and the chruch you retardate!

They are stup fuck.

SingingOwl said...

Hey, my friend, do not descend to their level, which is what happens when you start swearing and calling names. YOU are smarter than that, dear Metacrock!

Ethel Turtletop said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Madame D'Vine, Cuntessa of Flange said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
J.L. Hinman said...

you are not welcome here, get out.

jack perry said...

I will note here, as I did on the Bede's Library mailing list, that the conservatives in question did NOT use the phrase "dangerous"; they used the phrase "harmful". The difference in meaning is important: "dangerous" implies censorship is needed; "harmful" implies that careful study is needed in order to prevent these books from again gaining influence. Indeed most conservative intellectuals would argue that these books OUGHT to be studied, so that people can see just how wrong-headed and harmful they were, and a large number of conservative intellectuals have written very detailed critiques of the ideas in these books (including Keynes).

Maybe you should open your mind a little, and read some of these critiques. If you attribute anything to them that they do not in fact advocate, associating them with book burners, that is itself a form of intolerance and suppression of speech. They ought to be free to express their opinions without being smeared.

Perhaps you (as James suggested on his weblog) should name a few books that you consider to have been harmful. That would bring about dialogue and discussion, rather than the angry, self-righteous denunciation.

J.L. Hinman said...

I assumed Bede's reporting was accruate. That is a good point. I see there is a serious distinction in word choice. Although I'm not sure that a list of "harful" books is that much better.

URBILD said...

Hey, Metacrock's smart, leave him alone!

URBILD said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
metanoia said...

... "wut URBILD said "...

J.L. Hinman said...

Thanks guys

metanoia said...

Hey Meta,

well like i said on Doxa Forums i really DID want your opinion of the state of the intellectual left. (You being the practicing intellectual and all.) Is there an intellectual left, still? Is it active and coherent?

J.L. Hinman said...

The intellectual left has been in retreat since the Berlin Wall came down. It still exists, but the old alliences and groupings are no longer there. The focuss changed immediately from workers and proloterians to identity poiltics and Derridian postmodernism.

That sitatuion remained through the 90s, with some easing off identity poiltics but they never have really made a return to the worker's revolution. At one point in the late 90's there was a substantial incrase the Marcuse faction; this was led by the academic journal my brother and I published. But it was real, a lot more sutdy of Marcuse took place at that time, moreso than since the 1960s. Also the frankfurt school and Jurgen Habermass came into their own.

I dont' really know the situation now.

J.L. Hinman said...

The answer is, yeat it still exists and I was part of it.