PDA

View Full Version : What "Evil" books should I read?


bup
06-29-2009, 01:09 PM
I'm talking about books like Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries, that are products of minds dangerous and extremely abberant from the mainstream.

What are some others? If you've read some, do you recommend them, and why?

Diogenes the Cynic
06-29-2009, 01:23 PM
Some of the Marquise De Sade's stuff is pretty messed up, even by today's standards.

FriarTed
06-29-2009, 02:54 PM
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The Communist Manifesto

The Hoax of the Twentieth Century

Imperium by Francis Parker Yockey

(I never made it through 3 and didn't get past the foreword of 4).

Baker
06-29-2009, 03:01 PM
FriarTed, what are 3 and 4 about, or, what type of "evil" book are they?

Captain Amazing
06-29-2009, 03:12 PM
The Hoax of the 20th Century denies the Holocaust exists. Imperium says that Hitler was right and that Europe should be under a unified fascist government.

I'd recommend "the Creature from Jekyll Island" It's one of the better written of the "the Federal Reserve is an evil cabal of shadowy international financiers/Freemasons/Bilderbergers who are trying to set up a new world order and destroy American sovereignty and so we need to go back to the gold standard" nuttiness.

silenus
06-29-2009, 03:14 PM
I was going to suggest something by Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. :D

BrainGlutton
06-29-2009, 03:17 PM
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The Communist Manifesto

The Hoax of the Twentieth Century

Imperium by Francis Parker Yockey

(I never made it through 3 and didn't get past the foreword of 4).

I've never even picked up 4, but it is reviewed here. (http://www.johnreilly.info/imp.htm) Plenty of other evil (and not-so-evil) books reviewed by John J. Reilly (a Catholic conservative intellectual with interests in eschatology and theories of history) here, (http://www.johnreilly.info/hist.htm) here, (http://www.johnreilly.info/esch.htm) and here. (http://www.johnreilly.info/polwri.htm)

Two Many Cats
06-29-2009, 03:20 PM
"The Klansman" which is the book that "Birth of a Nation" is based on, I understand, is pretty evil. Word is D.W. Griffith cleaned it up quite a bit before he filmed it, which'll give you an idea. Very difficult to find though.

Personally, I find books like "Fascinating Womanhood" and the like which say things like, "Ladies, if you act all sweet and empty-headed, your husband will love you more." are sorta evil.

Books that advance the recovered memory movement like "When Rabbit Howls"
piss me off. I saw that one at Barnes and Noble yesterday. Thankfully, the recovered memory craze seems to be dying out.

astorian
06-29-2009, 03:23 PM
Read whatever you want- just be forewarned that a LOT of "evil" stuff is mighty boring when you actually read, see or hear it.

When a teenage metalhead with an urge to be transgressive picks up a Charles Manson record, he's likely to be EXTREMELY disappointed when he finds out that Charles was actually a wimpy wuss who mostly wrote and played folkie stuff. As a musician, Charles Manson was much closer to Cat Stevens than to Alice Cooper.

In the same way, a lot of "evil" books are pretty tedious. I HAD to read "Das Kapital" at Columbia. It's slow going, to put it charitably (in fairness, Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" was a snooze, too; I suspect most of my fellw free-market conservatives have read OF it than have actually read it!). And Hitler was not exactly a master prose stylist. If you don't fall asleep first, "Mein Kampf" is likely to make you wonder, "Who could possibly have thought this pompous dweeb was the savior of Germany????"

KRC
06-29-2009, 03:40 PM
I'd lend you my copies of Mr. Crowley's diaries, but my pet bird Azazel ate them.

yellowval
06-29-2009, 03:46 PM
"The Klansman" which is the book that "Birth of a Nation" is based on, I understand, is pretty evil. Word is D.W. Griffith cleaned it up quite a bit before he filmed it, which'll give you an idea. Very difficult to find though.
I came in here to mention that one. I have a copy. It's very old, but I can't remember quite how old and I'm not at home at the moment to check. My husband found it at our neighbors' garage sale. He showed it to me with wide eyes and his mouth hanging open. Of course we bought it. I haven't been able to muster up the courage to read it, though. This picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dixonfp.jpg) was enough to make me feel pretty queasy.

Little Nemo
06-29-2009, 03:51 PM
Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong (aka The Little Red Book)

Little Nemo
06-29-2009, 03:58 PM
I HAD to read "Das Kapital" at Columbia. It's slow going, to put it charitablyVery charitably. Here's the opening passage of Volume II:Chapter 1: The Circuit of Money Capital

The circular movement of capital takes place in three stages, which, according to the presentation in Volume I, form the following series:

First stage: The capitalist appears as a buyer on the commodity- and the labour-market; his money is transformed into commodities, or it goes through the circulation act M — C.

Second Stage: Productive consumption of the purchased commodities by the capitalist. He acts as a capitalist producer of commodities; his capital passes through the process of production. The result is a commodity of more value than that of the elements entering into its production.

Third Stage: The capitalist returns to the market as a seller; his commodities are turned into money; or they pass through the circulation act C — M.

Hence the formula for the circuit of money-capital is: M — C ... P ... C' — M', the dots indicating that the process of circulation is interrupted, and C' and M' designating C and M increased by surplus-value.

The first and third stages were discussed in Book I only in so far as this was necessary for the understanding of the second stage, the process of production of capital. For this reason, the various forms which capital takes on in its different stages, and which now assumes and now strips off in the repetition of its circuit, were not considered. These forms are now the direct object of our study.

In order to conceive these forms in their pure state, one must first of all discard all factors which have nothing to do with the changing or building of forms as such. It is therefore taken for granted here not only that the commodities are sold at their values but also that this takes place under the same conditions throughout. Likewise disregarded therefore are any changes of value which might occur during the movement in circuits.Exciting, huh? Like any good writer, Marx knew you had to hook the reader with the first page.

Diogenes the Cynic
06-29-2009, 04:01 PM
The Communist Manifesto does not belong on this list. It advicates nothing hateful or evil, and it certainly is not comparable to the racist titles listed in this thread. I would defend Marx as essentially correct in most of his assumptions, and as a Humanitarian in general. He was naive in many ways, but he wasn't evil.

Horatio Hellpop
06-29-2009, 04:10 PM
The SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanis
Chasing Hairy by Michael Fleischer (When he sued Harlan Ellison for calling him "bugfuck," Fleischer's lawyers tried to get this horrible book excluded from evidence)

Captain Amazing
06-29-2009, 04:12 PM
The Communist Manifesto does not belong on this list. It advicates nothing hateful or evil, and it certainly is not comparable to the racist titles listed in this thread.

Except for advocating the violent overthrow of society, the abolition of private property, and abolition of the family.

Little Nemo
06-29-2009, 04:18 PM
I would defend Marx as essentially correct in most of his assumptions, and as a Humanitarian in general. He was naive in many ways, but he wasn't evil.I'd say Marx was more often wrong than right in his assumptions. His biggest error was assuming the conditions he saw in his immediate view were universal.

And his naivete was so enormous that it was virtually evil. He advocated turning over all power to a small group of ideologues with no checks over them. Marx simply assumed that this would be okay because these men would only use their unchecked power righteously. That's not just naive; that's foolish. The reality is that once these men had power they kept it and used it to favor themselves. Marx may not have wanted to create men like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Dzerzhinsky, Beria, Ho, Castro, Tito, Ceausescu, Guzman, Honecker, Hoxha, Mengistu, Najibullah, Neto, Kim and Kim Junior, but he created a system that all of these men used.

dangermom
06-29-2009, 04:32 PM
Read whatever you want- just be forewarned that a LOT of "evil" stuff is mighty boring when you actually read, see or hear it.

Ain't that the truth. Many 'evil' books tend to be pompous, boring, and wandery. Sometimes they have many CAPITALS.

Fascinating Womanhood is good for a giggle, though. I used to bug my husband by cooing things like "I'm so glad you're the man!"

Has anyone mentioned "The Anarchist's Cookbook" yet? Don't try the recipes at home, I hear they're quite as likely to blow you up as to work as advertised.

Troubles
06-29-2009, 05:05 PM
I heartily recommend The Mind of Oswald, by Diane Holloway. It's not composed entirely of Oswald's writings and thoughts (it also has Ms. Holloway's analysis and comments), but I think it fits your criteria. It's a very interesting book about an enigmatic man. Here's the first sentence of the book; it effectively summarizes what it's about...

"The goal of this book is to examine Oswald's own words to learn what was going on in his mind."

bup
06-29-2009, 05:05 PM
Well, whether the Communist Manifesto is evil, or just wrong, I've already read it.

The Klansman sounds tempting, and the Marquis de Sade for my "Evil Books After Dark" shelf.

Diogenes the Cynic
06-29-2009, 05:08 PM
Except for advocating the violent overthrow of society, the abolition of private property, and abolition of the family.
Jesus advocated all those things too.

DocCathode
06-29-2009, 05:15 PM
Has anyone mentioned "The Anarchist's Cookbook" yet? Don't try the recipes at home, I hear they're quite as likely to blow you up as to work as advertised.

I've read it. I've heard, and believe, that the author later came to his senses and pronounced the book crap.

Back To The Op

To Serve Man- A Cookbook For People by Karl Wurf.

I have met the author and been in his kitchen.

Vinyl Turnip
06-29-2009, 05:18 PM
Some of the Marquise De Sade's stuff is pretty messed up, even by today's standards.

Hmm. Can't say I'm familiar with her work.

Skald the Rhymer
06-29-2009, 05:42 PM
Some of the Marquise De Sade's stuff is pretty messed up, even by today's standards.


Dio, I don't think you need the qualifiers some of or pretty in that sentence. Take, for instance, Philosophy of the Boudoir, which culminates with a 14-year-old-girl facilities the rape of her mother by a syphiltic and then sewing up her mother's vagina--ostensibly to keep the diseased semen from leaking out, but clearly because she thinks it amusing.

I think if Jesus Christ, Buddha, and Superman met the Marquis de Sade on the road, Buddha would immediately kill him, Supes would incinerate the body, and Jesus would say, "Yeah,I know I said everybody could be forgiven their sins, but there's always an exception."

Skald the Rhymer
06-29-2009, 05:49 PM
Jesus advocated all those things too.

Dio, I generally agree with you, but that's just silly. If you consider the Jesus of the Gospels to be a fictional character (as I do), it's pretty clear that he doesn't want society overthrown, as doing so would be trivial for him given the story's basic premises. If he'd wanted Rome violently ejected from Palestine, he could have bombed Pilate with a bolide or 20, or turned all the water in the governor's household to sulfuric acid, or whatever--or, if he was feeling lazy, called in Michael and a host of angels. In terms of the story, Jesus' pronouncements about bringing a sword rather than peace, about turning fathers and sons against one another, and so forth, are clearly not calls to violence; they are symbolic predictions of a coming paradigm shift.

Diogenes the Cynic
06-29-2009, 05:55 PM
I could argue the same thing about Marx, but I could make a case that Jesus literally advocated the abolition of class, family and personal possessions. Some of his parables were far more subversive than people realize.

Diogenes the Cynic
06-29-2009, 05:59 PM
Dio, I don't think you need the qualifiers some of or pretty in that sentence. Take, for instance, Philosophy of the Boudoir, which culminates with a 14-year-old-girl facilities the rape of her mother by a syphiltic and then sewing up her mother's vagina--ostensibly to keep the diseased semen from leaking out, but clearly because she thinks it amusing.
That's exactly the story I was thinking of.

Staale Nordlie
06-29-2009, 06:01 PM
I recommend the Bible. It's gruesome stuff, but it will help you understand more about the world. (Just don't let kids near it.)

Skald the Rhymer
06-29-2009, 06:04 PM
That's exactly the story I was thinking of.

I take it you haven't read Juliette, then. It's even worse. Even in my Fabulous Creature incarnation, I'd have had to say, "Okay, de Sade, calm down. You don't have to rape, murder, & eat every single virgin you see. In fact, screw it--somebody put a cap in the Frenchman."

BrainGlutton
06-29-2009, 07:38 PM
It doesn't get much more evil than The World Power Foundation: Its Goals and Platform, (http://www.amazon.com/World-Power-Foundation-Goals-Platform/dp/1559500026i) published by the late lamented Loompanics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loompanics_Unlimited) It's not boring, either. Quite the reverse. (Pure fiction/parody, of course.)

BrainGlutton
06-29-2009, 07:42 PM
"The Klansman" which is the book that "Birth of a Nation" is based on, I understand, is pretty evil.

Nitpick: The Clansman. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clansman) By Thomas Dixon, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Dixon,_Jr.)

BrainGlutton
06-29-2009, 07:46 PM
Except for advocating the violent overthrow of society, the abolition of private property, and abolition of the family.

What exactly does The Communist Manifesto say about abolition of the family?

sleeping
06-29-2009, 08:26 PM
He advocated turning over all power to a small group of ideologues with no checks over them. Marx simply assumed that this would be okay because these men would only use their unchecked power righteously. That's not just naive; that's foolish. The reality is that once these men had power they kept it and used it to favor themselves. Marx may not have wanted to create men like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Dzerzhinsky, Beria, Ho, Castro, Tito, Ceausescu, Guzman, Honecker, Hoxha, Mengistu, Najibullah, Neto, Kim and Kim Junior, but he created a system that all of these men used.

I think you're (mis)attributing Lenin's idea of a revolutionary vanguard to Marx. And I don't see how Marx created any kind of "system". He came up with a theory (which is widely considered important, if not entirely correct) which was mutated by various demagogues and dictators to suit their ends.

Captain Amazing
06-29-2009, 09:29 PM
What exactly does The Communist Manifesto say about abolition of the family?

From the second chapter:

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

BrainGlutton
06-29-2009, 09:59 PM
From the second chapter:

Hmmm . . . That don't actually sound so evil . . .

BrainGlutton
06-29-2009, 10:03 PM
I think if Jesus Christ, Buddha, and Superman met the Marquis de Sade on the road, Buddha would immediately kill him, Supes would incinerate the body, and Jesus would say, "Yeah,I know I said everybody could be forgiven their sins, but there's always an exception."

I haven't really read de Sade, so I don't know if this is true; but I once read that he advocated state brothels in which all women would be forced to serve at some period in their lives.

So, you see, even de Sade had his good side.

::d&r, hunched over with hands held protectively low::

filling_pages
06-30-2009, 09:22 AM
I read the Turner Diaries. Bought a copy at a Goodwill for a buck or so, both to satisfy my curiosity and to keep some kid from picking it up. It was written to appeal to the masses, so it's not slow, but it's pretty much trash regardless of the subject matter. I wouldn't suggest it.

On the other hand, Samuel Delany wrote a book called Hogg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogg_(novel)) that is probably the dirtiest and most disturbing piece of fiction I've ever read (not least because of Delany's skill as an author). It's told from the viewpoint of an 11 year old boy, and every page is drenched in (to quote the wiki) "murder, homosexuality, child molestation, incest, coprophilia, coprophagia, urolagnia, anal-oral contact, necrophilia and rape."

bup
06-30-2009, 10:11 AM
Hmm. While all that sounds really cool, I'm realizing now that I want my evil books to be something that some people have bought into. Has Hogg been a piece of dogma for any movement?

filling_pages
06-30-2009, 10:20 AM
Lord, I hope not.

Skald the Rhymer
06-30-2009, 10:22 AM
I haven't really read de Sade, so I don't know if this is true; but I once read that he advocated state brothels in which all women would be forced to serve at some period in their lives.

So, you see, even de Sade had his good side.

::d&r, hunched over with hands held protectively low::

I thought about summarizing some of the evil deeds in Juliette, Justine, the 120 Days of Sodom, & the aforementioned Philosophy of the Boudior in a spoiler box, but that wouldn't save ME from having to recall it.

Trust me. If de Sade were alive and had the ability to and intention of putting his fantasies into practice, everybody in a thousand miles would drop what they were doing to stop him.

tagos
06-30-2009, 10:41 AM
The Communist Manifesto does not belong on this list. It advicates nothing hateful or evil, and it certainly is not comparable to the racist titles listed in this thread. I would defend Marx as essentially correct in most of his assumptions, and as a Humanitarian in general. He was naive in many ways, but he wasn't evil.

Quite. You might as well put The Wealth of Nations on the list.

and a whole lot of political systems of oppression demanded a violent overthrow because there was no other way. Same for several around today.

in hiding
06-30-2009, 10:45 AM
If you don't fall asleep first, "Mein Kampf" is likely to make you wonder, "Who could possibly have thought this pompous dweeb was the savior of Germany????"

It's utterly unreadable. We tried in school (history, that was very cool - finally some "real" history), but we didn't get too far. It's just too ridiculous. Probably the reason why nobody realized what a crazy bastard hitler was. All the sick stuff he did is right there in that book. "But we didn't know" my Ass.

Actually, that would be a reason to read it. If it wasn't so bad.

tagos
06-30-2009, 10:47 AM
I'd say Marx was more often wrong than right in his assumptions. His biggest error was assuming the conditions he saw in his immediate view were universal.

And his naivete was so enormous that it was virtually evil. He advocated turning over all power to a small group of ideologues with no checks over them. Marx simply assumed that this would be okay because these men would only use their unchecked power righteously. That's not just naive; that's foolish. T

You haven't actually read any Marx have you? Or if you have, you have not understood it.

And you have to remember he was writing in a pre-democratic world in the brutal throes of industrialisation and the anciene regimes savagely hanging on to power and privilege.

Humble Servant
06-30-2009, 02:40 PM
Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong (aka The Little Red Book)My recollection is that this was, let's say, inscrutable, to be generous.

There's always The Prince, handbook of the Straussians. Evil or not?

BrainGlutton
06-30-2009, 03:41 PM
There's always The Prince, handbook of the Straussians. Evil or not?

That is an interminable debate. Some say Machiavelli was simply being realistic, to an unprecedented and therefore shocking degree, in describing how princes in real life do maintain their power successfully, and that his own real, republican political views are better found in the Discourses. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourses_on_Livy) Others say The Prince was published as a book-length resume, as it were, in an utterly cynical (and unsuccessful) effort to entice some prince to hire Machiavelli (who was in exile from Florentine public life when he wrote it) as a counselor.

Both could be true.

BrainGlutton
06-30-2009, 03:45 PM
S.M. Stirling's Domination of the Draka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domination_of_the_Draka) series has plenty of distilled evil in it (though Stirling vehemently insists it is a dystopia; readers' cognitive dissonance that point seems to arise from his treatment of many of the Draka as sympathetic or at least POV characters).

Captain Amazing
07-01-2009, 02:18 AM
And you have to remember he was writing in a pre-democratic world in the brutal throes of industrialisation and the anciene regimes savagely hanging on to power and privilege.

Yet by the time of his death in 1883, the United Kingdom had drastically extended male suffrage and had begun to pass laws protecting trade unions and guaranteeing worker's rights. France was a republic with universal male suffrage. In Germany, socialists had been elected to the Reichstag, and Bismarck, in an attempt to stop popular discontent had just passed a law making health insurance available for all workers. In America, slavery had been abolished, there was universal male suffrage (in theory, although not always in practice for blacks), and American workers were close to forming the AFL, the first successful federation of labor unions.

Yet, through all this, Marx was convinced that peaceful reform was impossible and that only violent revolution could bring about change.

GoodOmens
07-01-2009, 06:43 AM
Perhaps not "evil" but certainly aberrant from the mainstream...anything by David Icke. His stuff is basically a pan-conspiracy theory, covering all the usual suspects (Freemasons, NWO, Bildberberg Group, etc.) and lots of not-so-veiled reference to the Jews, but combined with 4th dimensional reptilians called the Annuaki. Check out "The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy."

tagos
07-01-2009, 07:46 AM
Yet by the time of his death in 1883, the United Kingdom had drastically extended male suffrage and had begun to pass laws protecting trade unions and guaranteeing worker's rights. France was a republic with universal male suffrage. In Germany, socialists had been elected to the Reichstag, and Bismarck, in an attempt to stop popular discontent had just passed a law making health insurance available for all workers. In America, slavery had been abolished, there was universal male suffrage (in theory, although not always in practice for blacks), and American workers were close to forming the AFL, the first successful federation of labor unions.

Yet, through all this, Marx was convinced that peaceful reform was impossible and that only violent revolution could bring about change.

I'm spotting the word 'male' figuring a lot in your reply.

and as you imply - white.

And yes - Marx was right. The absolute european monarchies only gave up the ghost after being laid low in WW1 and frightened to death by the Bolshevick Revolution.

The 1848 revolutionary uprisings were needed to scare the shit out of the ruling elite to get even some semblance of suffrage. As did the French Revolution and Napoleon.

Rulers never ceded privilege voluntarily. As you recognise with your Bismark comment.

They have to be forced into concessions. And in some cases hung from lamp-posts or introduced to the sharp edge of an axe.

We have our freedoms because brave people fought for them. In England's case the Civil War was important and was why we could have a relatively peaceful transition to democracy after the power of the monarchy was broken.

And in the USA unionisation was fought for - against the state supported violence of the employers. And most other places probably.

Nobody ever got freedom by asking nicely.

As someone once said - The Tree of Liberty has to be periodically renewed with the blood of patriots.

BrainGlutton
07-01-2009, 08:49 AM
As someone once said - The Tree of Liberty has to be periodically renewed with the blood of patriots.

". . . and tyrants."

tagos
07-01-2009, 08:53 AM
". . . and tyrants."

Really? Excellent.

Humble Servant
07-01-2009, 10:30 AM
Some say Machiavelli was simply being realistic, to an unprecedented and therefore shocking degree, in describing how princes in real life do maintain their power successfully, and that his own real, republican political views are better found in the Discourses. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourses_on_Livy) Variation on this--as in the Discourses, Machiavelli is republican and The Prince is his deadpan over-the-top critique of tyranny, baldly revealing tyranny for what it really is. He was shocked, shocked, to discover that people embraced it for being "realistic" and didn't care that the Prince is revealed as the amoral inhuman equivalent of the state itself whose bottom line is survival.

Diogenes the Cynic
07-01-2009, 10:34 AM
Yet by the time of his death in 1883, the United Kingdom had drastically extended male suffrage and had begun to pass laws protecting trade unions and guaranteeing worker's rights. France was a republic with universal male suffrage. In Germany, socialists had been elected to the Reichstag, and Bismarck, in an attempt to stop popular discontent had just passed a law making health insurance available for all workers. In America, slavery had been abolished, there was universal male suffrage (in theory, although not always in practice for blacks), and American workers were close to forming the AFL, the first successful federation of labor unions.

Yet, through all this, Marx was convinced that peaceful reform was impossible and that only violent revolution could bring about change.
How did the United States get started?

tagos
07-01-2009, 10:41 AM
How did the United States get started?

As I understand it from the Captain Amazing Big Book of History the British, once they became aware of slight undercurrents of discontent, were so shocked and embarrassed at their own gaucheness, they just walked away.

Didn't wait for ships or anything.

And Trade Unions were set up on the recommendation of Pinkerton's.

BrainGlutton
07-01-2009, 11:04 AM
As I understand it from the Captain Amazing Big Book of History the British, once they became aware of slight undercurrents of discontent, were so shocked and embarrassed at their own gaucheness, they just walked away.

Well, it is true that the Brits could easily have kept the war going after Yorktown, but finally gave up because they lost political will to fight it -- and that was partly because a great many Brits, including some MPs, were openly sympathetic to the American cause and always had been.

Captain Amazing
07-01-2009, 12:02 PM
How did the United States get started?

There's a difference between saying that revolution is sometimes necessary and saying that it is always necessary. The history of society is not solely that of struggle between classes. It is one in which conflict, cooperation, and co-option all have a role, and where people are motivated not only by class, but also by other, intangible factors; race, religion, nationality, family ties, and all sorts of idiosyncratic reasons. Change sometimes happens slowly, sometimes quickly, sometimes societies stagnate, and sometimes they explode in an orgy of innovation.

Diogenes the Cynic
07-01-2009, 12:10 PM
Can you cite an example where a ruling class ever voluntarily gave up power?

I also disagree that political struggles are not about class. Religion, nationalism and "family values" are just tools of class manipulation and resistance.

Fenris
07-01-2009, 01:18 PM
Perhaps not "evil" but certainly aberrant from the mainstream...anything by David Icke. His stuff is basically a pan-conspiracy theory, covering all the usual suspects (Freemasons, NWO, Bildberberg Group, etc.) and lots of not-so-veiled reference to the Jews, but combined with 4th dimensional reptilians called the Annuaki. Check out "The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy."

Is he the "Serpent Seed" guy? The lizards were the snake in the garden of Eden who boinked Eve who gave birth to half-lizard Jews?

Or was that someone else?

Johnny Q
07-01-2009, 01:26 PM
Well, it is true that the Brits could easily have kept the war going after Yorktown, but finally gave up because they lost political will to fight it -- and that was partly because a great many Brits, including some MPs, were openly sympathetic to the American cause and always had been.


I'm sure the French naval blockade helped too.

Polycarp
07-01-2009, 01:30 PM
"The Necronomicon -- the last book you'll ever want to read!" -- from the Miskatonic Univ. Press blurb :)

griffin1977
07-01-2009, 03:23 PM
Read whatever you want- just be forewarned that a LOT of "evil" stuff is mighty boring when you actually read, see or hear it.


Its been said of Mein Kampf that history may have been very different if that had been better written. It was very fashionable to own a copy during Hitler's rise to power, but its such a terrible book that only fanatics actually read it. If more people had, more people would have realized how extreme he really was.

One I'd add that I recently heard about (in this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/30/malkovich-jack-unterweger-vienna-austria)) Purgatory and the other books of Jack Unterweger would DEFINITELY fit that description.

FriarTed
07-01-2009, 06:15 PM
Is he the "Serpent Seed" guy? The lizards were the snake in the garden of Eden who boinked Eve who gave birth to half-lizard Jews?

Or was that someone else?

No, that's some of the Christian Identity folks. Probably the most famous (at least to 3 AM channel-hoppers) preacher of Serpent-Seed theology is Pastor Arnold Murray of Shepherd's Chapel- and he's the one who's NICE about it!*

("Nice" in that he teaches that the Serpent-Seed Cainites/Kenites have infiltrated but not completely overrun the Jews and that Kenites can be saved, and not that they are all demonic sub-humans who should be eradicated.)

David Icke seems to teach that ALL religions have been foisted off on us by the Reptilians.

Argent Towers
07-01-2009, 06:26 PM
On the other hand, Samuel Delany wrote a book called Hogg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogg_(novel)) that is probably the dirtiest and most disturbing piece of fiction I've ever read (not least because of Delany's skill as an author). It's told from the viewpoint of an 11 year old boy, and every page is drenched in (to quote the wiki) "murder, homosexuality, child molestation, incest, coprophilia, coprophagia, urolagnia, anal-oral contact, necrophilia and rape."

I just ordered Hogg on Amazon. I mean, how could I not, after that description? Even with all that, I doubt it will be able to top Crash in terms of sheer perversity, though it will probably be more "conventionally" transgressive.

griffin1977
07-01-2009, 06:37 PM
lots of not-so-veiled reference to the Jews

I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I didn't think David Icke's lizard people are no-so-veiled references to Jews, but rather his lizard people are actually lizard people, not metaphotical "nudge-nudge wink-wink 'lizard' people if you get what I mean" but very real physical lizards, with lizard tongues and all.

I always thought his neo-nazi following was kind of funny.... no this guy is not some kind canny Nazi anti-semite, wrapping his anti-semitism up in talk about "lizards", he's a crazy ex-snooker commentator who went on the Wogan show in torquoise shell-suit and claimed to be son-of-god, and thinks ACTUAL LIZARDS are running the world.

Tim@T-Bonham.net
07-02-2009, 12:24 AM
You might want to search for these books (especially the older ones) on http://www.gutenberg.org/ free online library. That way you can read them without having to buy them and put money into the hands of the author or their heirs or assignees.

I know that The Clansman and several de Sade ones are available there.

tagos
07-02-2009, 06:07 AM
I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I didn't think David Icke's lizard people are no-so-veiled references to Jews, but rather his lizard people are actually lizard people, not metaphotical "nudge-nudge wink-wink 'lizard' people if you get what I mean" but very real physical lizards, with lizard tongues and all.

I always thought his neo-nazi following was kind of funny.... no this guy is not some kind canny Nazi anti-semite, wrapping his anti-semitism up in talk about "lizards", he's a crazy ex-snooker commentator who went on the Wogan show in torquoise shell-suit and claimed to be son-of-god, and thinks ACTUAL LIZARDS are running the world.

Correct. Sometimes a Lizard Person is just a Lizard Person.

He had a psychotic episode and is now as happily mad as the maddest of Mad Hatters.

I think it's cool that he's managed to turn a severe and enduring mental illness into a profitable life-style rather than having to be hospitalized at tax-payer expense.

sweeteviljesus
07-02-2009, 11:15 AM
For evil books, let me recommend Physical Interrogation Techniques by Richard M. Krousher. His real name was Tony DeBlase, a leather daddy from Oregon. Anyway, the book is a large collection of ideas for the amateur sadist. I bought it because it was the worst thing I ever read (in terms of evil, not suckitude).

filling_pages
07-02-2009, 12:06 PM
I just ordered Hogg on Amazon. I mean, how could I not, after that description? Even with all that, I doubt it will be able to top Crash in terms of sheer perversity, though it will probably be more "conventionally" transgressive.

I've read Crash. I'll be interested to hear how you think they compare in terms of perversity and literary worth.

Reno Nevada
07-02-2009, 02:43 PM
You might want to search for these books (especially the older ones) on http://www.gutenberg.org/ free online library. That way you can read them without having to buy them and put money into the hands of the author or their heirs or assignees.

I know that The Clansman and several de Sade ones are available there.

Just for the record, if a work is (legally) in Gutenberg, then it is in public domain, and any published copy does not give royalties to anyone.

rowrrbazzle
07-04-2009, 04:34 PM
As for Marx not being evil, read up on his private life. He treated people around him like shit. It's a good bet that had he been in charge instead of Lenin or Stalin, things would have been just as bad.

I tried to read Mein Kampf once. It isn't a continuous stream of hatred of the Jews and other people Schicklgruber thought inferior. He included so much boring minutiae about his political maneuverings I just gave up.

As long as the Bible has been mentioned, I'll throw in the Koran.

You might want to search for these books (especially the older ones) on http://www.gutenberg.org/ free online library. That way you can read them without having to buy them and put money into the hands of the author or their heirs or assignees.

I know that The Clansman and several de Sade ones are available there.If you're old-fashioned, your local public library should have the dead tree versions.

Avumede
07-04-2009, 11:33 PM
The most evil book I've ever read is Les Chants de Maldoror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Chants_de_Maldoror). Not evil in the sense of the author is a monster, though, like the suggestions above, just the book is suffused with terror, madness, and evil. I'd recommend it.

Tapioca Dextrin
07-05-2009, 01:12 AM
he's a crazy ex-snooker commentator who went on the Wogan show in torquoise shell-suit and claimed to be son-of-god, and thinks ACTUAL LIZARDS are running the world.

To get a true idea of the magnitude of Icke's nuttiness, I'd reccomend Them: Adventures with Extremists (http://www.amazon.com/Them-Adventures-Extremists-Jon-Ronson/dp/0743233212/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246774001&sr=8-1) which is a hilarious series of interviews with the creme de la creme of the world's whackos.

Eyebrows 0f Doom
07-05-2009, 01:46 AM
You might want to search for these books (especially the older ones) on http://www.gutenberg.org/ free online library. That way you can read them without having to buy them and put money into the hands of the author or their heirs or assignees.

I know that The Clansman and several de Sade ones are available there.

The only de Sade ones I found there were in French.

Neidhart
07-05-2009, 09:48 AM
The Rising Tide of Color (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rising_Tide_of_Color_Against_White_World-Supremacy) by Lothrop Stoddard.

The Passing of the Great Race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race) by Madison Grant.

Both mainstream thinking in the 1920s!

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.