“Ten books we should BURN! burn, burn, burn!”

Accordion Guy picked up this tragi-grotesque list of “Most Harmful” books of the century on Human Events Online, a site that panting hardcore conservatives usually browse with a single hand…

Hmmn, awright… I’m not even sure why I bother discussing a list that places Darwins, Kinsey, Beauvoir and overall, any socio-political thought somewhat left of fundamentalist wingnutry as “harmful”…

Yet… I thought I would point out that these “19th and 20th century” contributions all but pale in comparison to a certain piece of writing from twenty centuries ago.

Now, I am serious here: assuming somebody can give me anything other than “They don’t agree with us” as a systematic criterion for inclusion, I presume we would have to take in account killing and massacring of innocents as an important part of the selection process. In which case, call me biased, but I would dare venture that 2000 years of bloody history all seem to point at that bestseller featuring the life and teaching of that famous bearded hippie.

Not only was the man a dangerous subversive commie with strong anti-capitalist positions and a heavy past as a free-trade obstructionist, but his book went on to justify a good half of all blood baths that took place in recorded history… Tell me about harmful liberal propaganda…


  1. The article is someone’s opinion, as is much of the content of certain of the books listed. I am not saying that I agree, just that they have as much of a right to express THEIR point of veiw as does anyone who does not agree with it.

    It is important, in condemning certain words, such as their, not to fall into the same ‘wanting to burn their words’ mentality. Otherwise, we are the same, only worse.

  2. Hey Sammy,
    You are most definitely right: there’s no point in getting shrill over that… But I thought I was well within moderation here… Note that the “burn” allusion was complete second-degree here, and referring to their own treatment of the list, not what I personally think of it…

    If you want to see what people vocally disagreeing with the list itself may say, you should check over the comment’s on Accordion Guy’s post. Lots of them are very much worth a read.

    Of course it it the opinion of people entitled to their opinion, of course. But when concocting such a “10 most blahblahblah of the century”, there’s always, understated, the idea of a certain objectivity, if not consensus…

    What they did, instead, was dish out the most incredibly grotesque list of personal pet peeves and attacks, mixed in with a few cheap targets, and stamp some sort of “collegial” legitimacy on it. It’s as if I picked a list of “10 Most Harmful People” and placed Stalin, Hitler and… G.W. Bush on top. It may reflect to some extent the way I feel, but it’d be a cheap shot, unworthy of anything calling itself journalism.

    The whole thing is laughable, if anything. But then again, I wasn’t really trying to go nitpicking with a bunch of political wackos, just pointing certain ironies in their game.

    Thanks for expressing your point, though: I’ll make sure I don’t start burning books any time soon. 🙂

    [PS: and sorry about your comment being held: my spam filter tends to disagree with blogspot, due to the unfortunate number of spammers using it to spread nasty ads for virility-enhancing substances]

Comments are closed.