site banner
KulakRevolt  3mo ago (anarchonomicon.com)   Edited 3mo ago   3356 thread views

The Anarchonomicon REAL Banned Book List

anarchonomicon.com

Regime-banned books are in school libraries and on indigo bookshelves at eye level for children.

REAL banned books are often decades out of print, going for hundreds of dollars used on eBay, they've been disappeared by publishers and distributors in spite of interest and demand. Others have authors who've died or been imprisoned for their ideas, yet more have been removed from city or university-wide library systems so that their "Misinformation" and "Lies" do not poison impressionable scholars.

Yet more are suppressed algorithmically, not appearing on the author's wikipedia page and not appearing in Google search if you type the author and "book" or "memoirs"... but only appearing when you already know the full title of the work (try this yourself: Type in "Pinochet Memoirs", and then type in "Pinochet: A journey through a life")

Yet others are explicitly banned, some to the point where a mere PDF on your hard drive can result in a decade-long sentence... IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, NEW ZEALAND, and AUSTRIA.

This has been a massive project. over 200 titles on the full list and 10,000 words in my "Cursory" survey.

Let me take you on a journey into the heart of the forbidden

UPDATE: Also Checkout My Addendum to The Real Banned Book list on Holocaust Revisionist Liturature

39
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

On further look

at your image "The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy" by Mearsheimer probably shouldn't be on there. Mearsheimer is a thoroughly mainstream author. Anyone studying International Relations will have to contend with the Realist school of thought and Mearhsheimer is pretty unavoidable.

Likewise putting "On War" by Carl von Clausewitz on there is a bit like saying Sun Tzu's "Art of War" is a banned book. It's not just "Not Banned" it's prominent and pushed. The casual reader will like Sun Tzu's small chapters writing style far more than Clausewitz's "let us consider War from Idealism first principles and also here's 200 pages on Napoleonic era reconnaissance" (skip the Napoleonic stuff, but don't ignore the Idealism. It actually important to his argument) But On War is still literally the first book that will be presented to anyone studying the Europe & it's descendants Way of War.

At most there is a vague sense of "Clausewitz is outdated because he deal with states and not non-state actors". But On War is the elephant in the room at any given time. No one gets a masters by saying "ehhh clausewitz is basically still correct". That doens't indicate any intellectual development. So while there is a bevy of people criticizing Clausewitz that certainly doesn't rise to the level of Banned Book.

On War was prominently banned during Denazification.

I wouldn't have included it, but researching the period I encountered multiple quotes from American censors GLOATING that the Germans wouldn't be reading Clausewitz anymore.

Actually I might edit in a comment on that.

They also banned tons of Little Red Riding Hood stuff... Allegedly the Nazis often depicted the wolf as a jew, so the allies destroyed countless rare and beautiful Pre-war Collectors illustrated editions...

It is very likely some printings and original art for Clausewitz and little Red Riding hood and thousands of others are now lost forever.

I tried not to include "This was once banned in a foreign country 80 years ago" type stuff... But when it was the American army doing the banning, that warrants inclusion.

I quibble but it's a reasonable argument. We've definitely largely forgotten the degree to which defeating the Nazi's was rhetorically presented as Smashing Junker Prussian Militarism and stopping the Germans from reading On War is consistent with that.

All the more absurd that then a few years later the US would be so taken in by the histories of Halder and Melenthin.

Would love to see a list of texts banned by US occupation forces in Japan. My impression is that there was a strange combination of renaissance of writings from the simultaneous abolishing of Japanese censorship while also starting American censorship of militarist/expansionist texts. But I'm far less exposed to the Pacific Theater and could be wildly off base.

I quibble but it's a reasonable argument.

It's not a reasonable argument at all. Kulak is basically going "this is an actually banned book", while citing as evidence that it was suppressed in the past. That's not a banned book, then, because today it is not just not suppressed, but widely discussed (as you correctly pointed out).

It was actually banned, by the current regime, as opposed to "The Handmaid's Tale" and "To kill a Mockingbird" which populates "Banned books" displays around the country and the regime has been desperate to get people to read.

I'm fascinated by the Issolated demand for rigour. The Regime labels every piece of their propaganda "banned" and narry a quibble... I come up with a counter list of works the regime has actively sought to suppress at various points, and suddenly if it doesn't burn your eyes out of your socket or provoke preemptive strikes, it has never been "Really" banned

Yeah, Mearsheimer is more of a subversive author than a banned author. Reading his books is eye-opening though, they have a certain punch factor that Ebbridge Colby lacks, even when they talk about the same kind of things and have a similar worldview. It's the difference between 'How to fix this specific problem with Windows' and 'A complete guide to Operating Systems: Strengths, Weaknesses and which is best for you'.

Also surprised you didn't add in Hitler's Table Talks by 'The Brown Eminence' Martin Bormann. There are translations available but the translations are flawed and unreliable. Which means that unless you speak German you are restricted from one of the top 5 key books to getting a window into Hitler's Worldview. Decades of the topic being done to death and yet here we are still waiting for a reputable translation of one of the key books.

Weirdly enough some of the critiquing of the translation by the book was done by one of the New Atheist minor figures, Richard Carrier. Once you get into the weeds these things really do become a small world.

Which means that unless you speak German you are restricted from one of the top 5 key books to getting a window into Hitler's Worldview

I mean there's probably not much point dedicating time to studying a historical period in anything more than a casual fashion unless you can read the relevant language to some degree. There's not much market for the translation of books which are of mostly academic interest in relation to German history since almost every historian of Germany can read German.

Weirdly enough some of the critiquing of the translation by the book was done by one of the New Atheist minor figures, Richard Carrier. Once you get into the weeds these things really do become a small world.

Critiquing not only the translation, but the whole thing as completely fradulent.

Hitler’s Table Talk: The Definitive Account

By the conclusion, you start to get the clear picture, as did Nilsson, that a lot of what went wrong had to do with what one single con artist—the unrepentant Swiss Nazi banker François Genoud—did to manipulate decades of historians into doing his bidding by replicating and validating his own myths and fabrications. A single man behind it all; mostly invisible to the public, as his involvement was barely if ever even mentioned in historical treatments and third-party publications of the Table Talk, and thus all his devices and manipulations went unnoticed until Nilsson uncovered them all. I was among the first to signal this might be the case, as it was my article in GSR that exposed the first evidence of Genoud being the actual fraud behind it, when I uncovered how he doctored his own French translation, and that the English translation was based on that—for reasons I then did not know and could not explain; Nilsson uncovers the hidden truth: Genoud had forced by secret contract everyone involved in producing the English edition—publishers, translators, and its editor and endorser, the renowned Hitler historian Hugh Trevor-Roper—to only use his French as their base text. Nilsson explores various reasons why Genoud did that, though certainty may never be ours, as his motives Genoud took with him to the grave…along with the original manuscript, apparently—no version of which survives (apart from a few pages recovered by the U.S. Army after the war, which I was also for some reason the first to publicly reference beyond merely mentioning they exist; it appears Nilsson may have also located three other notes from it copied from Genoud’s archive that have still never been published, p. 241). In fact, apart from those few sheets (and a mere handful of some photocopied pages reproduced in various places), no person still living has even seen the original notes forming the Table Talk. So really getting to the bottom of things here may be forever impossible now.

Imagine being one of the most combed over subjects of all time, to the point where people use your field as an example of ground so well trodden there is nothing left to say, and then someone unrelated walks in an discredits a major source all because he got super into early 00's internet religion fights.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats