?

Log in

No account? Create an account
not a bad historical reading list - Terrafactive Armageddon

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile

URLs of convenience
Google Shared
Amazon wishlist
friends
more friends
even more friends
posting
Cat macros

June 4th, 2005


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
07:52 pm - not a bad historical reading list
The Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries list at Human Events (the National Conservative Weekly), like many lists of this kind, says a lot more about the list-makers than any of the items.

But no Kropotkin! Tsk.
Current Music: Waitress - To Venus And Back (Disc 2) [Live] - Tori Amos

(10 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:nihilistech
Date:June 4th, 2005 11:32 pm (UTC)
(Link)
But Darwin made the runner-up list twice!

From:amnotsurly
Date:June 5th, 2005 04:32 am (UTC)
(Link)
The Kinsey Report?! Hrm. I can see the Darwin books.

I would have thought that conservatives would like Freidrich Nietzsche.
From:amnotsurly
Date:June 5th, 2005 04:34 am (UTC)
(Link)
I mean: I can see how a conservative would think that Darwin books were harmful. Not that I think they are harmful myself. I think that they are beneficial.
From:mykque
Date:June 5th, 2005 03:08 pm (UTC)

Re: Nietzsche

(Link)
I'm not surprised that he made the list. He had some not very complementary things to say about religion in general and christianity in particular.

I was a little surprised to see "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill in the honorable mention category.
From:amnotsurly
Date:June 5th, 2005 03:13 pm (UTC)

Re: Nietzsche

(Link)
Conservative doesn't have to mean religious nutjob...
From:mykque
Date:June 5th, 2005 03:31 pm (UTC)

Re: Nietzsche

(Link)
What's your point? Lot's of people from across the political spectrum find Nietzsche objectionable, and people who agreed with him have committed many atrocities. If anything I'm surprised he didn't end up higher on the list.
From:amnotsurly
Date:June 5th, 2005 04:07 pm (UTC)

Re: Nietzsche

(Link)
You said that all conservatives were cultists and that's why they don't like Nietzsche. My point is that I'm willing to accept that, but I still find it surprising.

I would have thought that his emphasis on the individual would appeal to conservatives. Also, FWIW, the Nazis mostly misunderstood him. I know that one can read a text in multiple ways, but to blame Neitzche for the "deconstruction" of his "text" that the Nazis used is very postmodern in a way that I associate with liberal thinkers.
[User Picture]
From:mcjulie
Date:June 7th, 2005 12:31 pm (UTC)

Re: Nietzsche

(Link)
Nietzsche was also a militant atheist, responsible for the "God is dead" quote. I'm pretty sure that's why they hate him. These aren't libertarian-type conservatives we're talking about, in spite of MikeK's inexplicable urge to defend them.
From:mykque
Date:June 7th, 2005 05:10 pm (UTC)

Re: Nietzsche

(Link)
amnotsurly asked why Nietzsche?, and I took a minute to read the website and answered him. I'm not sure that constitutes a defense.

What I don't understand is why anyone would care about an obscure (I don't read every conservative rag, but I've haven't heard of them before) online magazine thinks are harmful books. They're writing to a particular audience and don't have much influence outside that audience. I mean if the Peoples Weekly World http://www.pww.org/ published a list of harmful books I'd never know and wouldn't care if someone pointed it out to me.
From:amnotsurly
Date:June 8th, 2005 05:25 am (UTC)

Re: Nietzsche

(Link)
I didn't ask "why Nietzche?" I said "I would have thought that conservatives would like Freidrich Nietzsche."

After that I was mostly taking the piss.

I care because Julie posted about it and then Joy did. But it's not something I'm, like, invested in. If you post a list from http://www.pww.org I might comment on it too.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com