Great Books by Morally Questionable Authors

Abybody got this as a list? Slide shows really aught to go the way of scrolling, flashing text.

It is very danerous to suppose that these were just bad men without understanding the basis for their thinking. Though I'm not familiar with many of these authors, being largely authors of fiction, I am familiar in-part with Heidegger and the Nazi ideology.

We may call it an ideology but from the perspective of many, and I would maintain from the perspective of Hitler himself, this was mere recognition of fact. Though perhaps the Nazis were more than a tad myopic and self-centered in their recognition of fact, which is a disease few of us can claim to be inocculated against.

As the history of Jews in relation to the world evolved, and the following information is straight out of the Jewish Encyclopedia (JewishEncyclopedia.com), Jews became narrowly identified as money-changers and bankers. The reasons for this are religious and political.

"The Talmud (B. M. 61b) dwells on Ezek. xviii. 13 (Hebr.): "He has lent on usury; he has taken interest; he shall surely not live, having done all these abominations"; on the words with which the prohibition of usury in Lev. xxv. 36 closes: "Thou shalt be afraid of thy God"; and on the further words in which Ezekiel (l.c.) refers to the usurer: "He shall surely suffer death; his blood is upon him"; hence the lender on interest is compared to the shedder of blood."

In the ancient world lending at interest (period) was called "Usury" and was classed amongst the sins of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. But with one exception; whereas Christians and Muslims were completely barred from ever practicing usury, the Jews made an exception in the case of gentiles (non-Jews or Goyyim).

"When an Israelite lends money to a Gentile or to an "indwelling stranger" (a half-convert of foreign blood), he may and should charge him interest; and when he borrows from such a person he should allow him interest. It is the opinion of Maimonides that for Jews to charge Gentiles interest is a positive command of the written law. [The reason for the non-prohibition of the receipt by a Jew of interest from a Gentile, and vice versa, is held by modern rabbis to lie in the fact that the Gentiles had at that time no law forbidding them to practise usury; and that as they took interest from Jews, the Torah considered it equitable that Jews should take interest from Gentiles. Conditions changed when Gentile laws were enacted forbidding usury; and the modern Jew is not allowed by the Jewish religion to charge a Gentile a higher rate of interest than that fixed by the law of the land.—E. C.]"

But that is the "modern Jew" the ancient and medeival Jew could charge interest to gentiles. This alone made banking or money-lending an profitable enterprise for Jews, and as Jews were widely despised few Goyyim would patronize Jewish carpenters or masons. Instead the Gentiles capitalized on those trades and the Jews found their niche in money-lending.

"The Church, basing itself upon a mistranslation of the text Luke vi. 35 interpreted by the Vulgate "Mutuum date, nihil inde sperantes," but really meaning "lend, never despairing" (see T. Reinach in "R. E. J." xx. 147), declared any extra return upon a loan as against the divine law, and this prevented any mercantile use of capital by pious Christians. As the canon law did not apply to Jews, these were not liable to the ecclesiastical punishments which were placed upon usurers by the popes, Alexander III. in 1179 having excommunicated all manifest usurers. Christian rulers gradually saw the advantage of having a class of men like the Jews who could supply capital for their use without being liable to excommunication, and the money trade of western Europe by this means fell into the hands of the Jews."

And it was some time before Christendom opened up the doors on usury and redefined the term as "Charging excessive interest" as apart from it's original meaning "Charging interest". As Christendom and Islam became more at the mercy of Jewish money-lenders the hatred of the Jews also escalated, and by the time the Nazis were on the scene, the Jews were seen as the master controllers of the entire global economic system. This may be true to the extent that money-lending/banking is a long-standing trade for Jewish families and with much technical background to perform the task well. The morality of which can still be debated, certainly Muslims are inclined to argue the immorality of it as charging interest on loans is still barred by Sharia Law.

So from some slightly skewed perspective Jews can appear to be heartless money-grubbing elitist and racist people, but we should not forget the reasons for that appearance as well, which in some part has to do with the prejudice of ancient gentiles as well. Or the fact that "Jew" is an arbitrary and loose classification like everything else. To my understanding Hasidic Judaism is of a different nature than the orthodoxy which established the doctrine of usury within ancient Judaism.

And so I maintain it is not a lack of moral sense, but a screwed up view of the facts probably screwed up by some inner insecurity or compulsion. In post-Treaty-of-Versailles Germany the economy looked really bad and to many German minds, in particular Hitler's the Jews were behind it, and more specifically the Rothchilds. The Rothschilds were not, as far as I can tell, a biological family, and the name Rothschilds was not native to Jews. Rather Rothschilds was a compound of two German words "Rot" (red) and "Schilds" (shields). Some of them may have been related only through financial interests, the last time their wealth was made public more than 100 years ago, their cumulative worth was 1 Billion, which adjusted for inflation is about 100 Trillion dollars.

There is some truth in the conspiracy theories, but what they overlook is the essential human. Jews did not get into this line of work because of some devious or evil intent, but because of doctrinal and economic forces. And it was the myopia of the National Socialists to not see this, but only see the results of it and make dubious assumptions about the reasons for it.

Source: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=58&letter=U&search=usury

I guess what that all boils down to is a recognition of the fact that there aren't really any intentionally evil people, rather there are people who see the world in all kind of screwed up ways which justifies their their actions in relation to their moral sense. Germany itself would have never backed the Nazis if they were not utterly convinced that they were doing the right and good thing; ridding the world of an evil menace. We never stop to think that the real evil in the world is this predilection to see others as evil and thus overlook their essential humanity and the real reasons for their thoughts and behavior.

Seems like everyone's failing that betrays how horrible they are is anti-semitism, pre-WWII fascism, or being politically conservative. Except JD Salinger and Dickens who are just awful individuals.

I never read Roald Dahl as a kid,and when I read his books as an adult I found the books to be mean. Then I read Patricia Neil's autobiography. She had a stroke while married to Dahl and he would give her no help whatsoever. If she needed to use the bathroom and he was the only one around, she had to drag herself across the floor. If that's the way he treated the wife he supposedly loved, he was a miserable example of a human being.

Before and during WWII many people were under the influence of propaganda. Just like many people are today. A simple example: it's easy to condemn a Muslim suicide bomber, but really they are just brainwashed victims. There are a lot less obvious examples but that would stir up too much controversy.

@Jeff

Clearly the same couldn't be said of any semite, a term which encompasses Palestinian Arabs. In the case of the E1 land-area east of Jerusalem near Maaleh Adumim, a disputed land-area which ostensibly belongs to the West Bank. The land area is designated as Palestinian land according to any and all treaties including the 1967 border's which Jews disaffectionately call the "Auschwitz Line" with the full intent of expanding beyond it. Currently the IsraelLandFund.com website is offering land in the E1 Area with the following statement of intent: "As part of the battle to settle E1, it is important to purchase this property so that it can become a base for settlement and agriculture in the E1 area."

In other words, it is important to settle on it now so that when it comes down to crass facts we can say "We are already here." Meanwhile, Palestinians, Americans and other nationalities, including some Israeli Jews ahve tried establishing Palestinian settlements on E1 Land only to be forcefull removed by the IDF.

This is the behavior of a nation of "semites" which to my mind is morally reprehensible and clearly in this case "anti-semitism" isn't the betraying factor. To my mind the betraying factor is always a personal exceptionalism or elitism or specialism or something which rends the human race in two and provides the basis for both conflicts and treaties. There would be no need of a treaty if there were never any separation.

Here's the list:

* Roald Dahl, Matilda
* V.S. Naipaul, A House for Mr. Biswas
* Ezra Pound, Hugh Selwyn Bauberley
* T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets
* Gertrude Stein, The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas
* Martin Heidegger, Being and Time
* Charles Dickens, Bleak House
* Zora Neale Hurston, Their Eyes Were Watching God
* J.D. Salinger, Franny and Zooey

Roald Dahl a nazi sympathizer? If I am to believe his wikipedia entry, the guy's a war hero.

I don't believe either 100%. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I'd advise to be skeptical.

Just to add my 2cents: Dahl's children's stories are basically amusing (but with a dark streak); the stuff he wrote for adults, though, is downright disturbing. It wouldn't take much for me to believe he was not a very nice or normal person...

The attack on Zora Neale Hurston is completely unwarranted. The worst thing the slideshow author comes up with was that HUrston was politically conservative and opposed affirmative action and integration? She's "morally questionable" for that? Really?

The fact is that Hurston truly thought both of these movements were *detrimental* for the long term progress of blacks in the U.S.

She anticipated that forced integration would result in a loss of black culture and an unfair imposition of the Federal government into private lives. Her views at the time (and this was 60 years ago... we have the benefit of hindsight) may be arguable one way or the other, but she felt was acting in the best interest of her fellow blacks.

On the next ubject, she considered affirmative action cheating, akin to making the game easier in a patronizing way, the government's implication being that blacks couldn't succeed with the same rules as everyone else. THAT's why she rejected affirmative action, not because she was some sort of traitor to her race as the article/slideshow implies.