Best fucked up books

[need shoeonhead nudes]

HUNTER by William Luther Pierce

this book is 100x better than his more well known one, the turner diaries.
it's actually got a lot of helpful tactics and advice for debates/taking action sprinkled in. it's basically a manual for effective political assassination dressed up as a fiction novel

edit; dude deleted his post

 

[kaien]

This one sounds really interesting, reminds me of the book Programmed to Kill

Yeah, Cathy O'Brien was one of the all-stars in the '90s pre-internet era of conspiracy whackjobs. She was heavily promoted by David Icke in his heyday.

 

[Compulsory Games]

Yeah, Cathy O'Brien was one of the all-stars in the '90s pre-internet era of conspiracy whackjobs. She was heavily promoted by David Icke in his heyday.

I read TRANCEFormation in my late teens and it made me a lifelong enthusiast of that kind of insanity. "Someone carved a baphomet on my vaginal wall!" Good times.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

the book where some kids are trapped underground and they have the idea to get out so all the boys run a train on the only girl

 

[kaien]

the book where some kids are trapped underground and they have the idea to get out so all the boys run a train on the only girl

And I get what Stephen King was going for there, the metaphor for the end of childhood and all that, but, uh, maybe not the best choice of metaphor.

 

[Solid Snek]

And I get what Stephen King was going for there, the metaphor for the end of childhood and all that, but, uh, maybe not the best choice of metaphor.

Stephen King was going for porn, because he's a nonce.

 

[Carnavoyeur]

The Butcher Boy by Patrick McCabe is incredibly dark and funny, told from the perspective of an Irish boy whose terrible childhood drives him to become a criminal--and drives him to madness and a fantasy world. Reminiscent of A Clockwork Orange and Trainspotting, where the protagonist just casually remarks on all of the fucked up shit they're going through in a stream of consciousness style, and you're not always sure what's real and what's imaginary.

There was a film adaptation by Neil Jordan (which I had seen before I read the book) that was really fantastic. Sinead O'Connor plays the Virgin Mary.

 

[Hazel Motes]

Cock & Bull by Will Self involves a female (she grows a penis next to her thingy) on male rape scene twice which made me put it down for a while. One of his best though. A doctor fucks a rugby player's knee vagina.

 

[Calamity]

I'm sure someone has probably brought up Peter Sotos work by now. His writings are pretty grisly- Very brutal looks at things like sexual abuse and murder, but he tries to often write from the criminals perspective and understand their attractions. Nonfiction stuff if you're into True Crime. I loved the 'Answer Me!' magazines too he sometimes got included in, for some interesting real life stories that were included in those from other writers, too. I'm not a Jim Goad fan, but the folk writing in often have some interesting takes.

"Total Abuse: Collected Writings" from Sotos is a nice starting point where you don't have to dig around for the scattered stuff of his from old zines.

 

[BrunoMattei]

Industrial Society and it's Future AKA The Unabomber Manifesto: by Ted Kaczynsky. Is it a fucked up book though? A lot of the points Kaczynsky makes sound reasonable and are eerily prescient such as:

But is it fucked up that this comes from the mind of a domestic terrorist? Really makes you think...

 

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

Industrial Society and it's Future AKA The Unabomber Manifesto: by Ted Kaczynsky. Is it a fucked up book though? A lot of the points Kaczynsky makes sound reasonable and are eerily prescient such as:

Ver archivo adjunto 2281521
But is it fucked up that this comes from the mind of a domestic terrorist? Really makes you think...

I find Kaczynski to be an utterly fascinating figure because, quite frankly, he's right in a lot of ways. His stance on technology, while extreme, has a kernel of truth to it. We are basically enslaved to our machines, and while technology makes our lives easier it's also allowed for others to control our existence. If you showed someone his manifesto without telling them who wrote it, I don't think there'd be a lot they would disagree with, at least if they weren't the kind of ultra-consoomer Kaczynski rails against.

Where it gets fuzzy is the fact that he was legitimately violent. It's one thing to philosophize the fall of Western civilization, it's another thing entirely to go out of your way to kill people for the sake of your beliefs. It's a moral no-man's-land, and that's why I think it qualifies as being fucked up; this guy was wicked smart and clearly knows his shit, but he was also a terrorist that succeeded in killing 3 people and wounding 23 others.

 

[AnOminous]

But is it fucked up that this comes from the mind of a domestic terrorist? Really makes you think...

It's fucked up that a domestic terrorist was the person to articulate these thoughts so well. It almost amused me when journalists described the book as "rambling," when it really isn't. It quite clearly states its thesis up front, then goes on to support it, and again, coherently sums up and concludes at the end.

It's pretty much the kind of manifesto a mathematician would write about social issues. The thesis is stated entirely in the first sentence, pretty much the opposite of "rambling." "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race." This is a model of clarity.

The language is not particularly inspiring, nor is he that familiar with social theory, although largely he does not care in the least about mainstream social theory. However, it is far from the rambling diatribe of a madman, and if reading this doesn't provoke any thoughts in you utter than a lazy ass slur like "rambling," you're probably a moron. Or a journalist. But I repeat myself.

The one thing I never really got is how this thinking somehow connected to mailing bombs to random technocrat targets, most of whom did not seem particularly important in their own right. It is hardly worth attracting attention to your manifesto if, at the same time, you cause it to be dismissed as a madman's ravings sight unseen. I'm sure his reasons for the targets he chose made sense to him, but I can't really figure them out.

The manifesto itself is not that fucked up, and is frankly outright correct on a number of issues, but the circumstances surrounding it definitely are fucked up, and if you admitted you agreed with the Unabomber on a number of things, even if they didn't include this whole randomly send bombs to people thing, you'd probably be considered fucked up.

 

[BrunoMattei]

The one thing I never really got is how this thinking somehow connected to mailing bombs to random technocrat targets, most of whom did not seem particularly important in their own right. It is hardly worth attracting attention to your manifesto if, at the same time, you cause it to be dismissed as a madman's ravings sight unseen. I'm sure his reasons for the targets he chose made sense to him, but I can't really figure them out.

The manifesto itself is not that fucked up, and is frankly outright correct on a number of issues, but the circumstances surrounding it definitely are fucked up, and if you admitted you agreed with the Unabomber on a number of things, even if they didn't include this whole randomly send bombs to people thing, you'd probably be considered fucked up.

I think the fucked up part is how he got his message out. I don't think the targets actually mattered but it was how he did it and the attention it got. If he was a guy who just shot and killed someone then no one would care. He killed to spread the message. By the same logic, you could say Manson killed out of a lack of attention and he got it. Look At Your Game Girl is a good song.

 

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

The one thing I never really got is how this thinking somehow connected to mailing bombs to random technocrat targets, most of whom did not seem particularly important in their own right. It is hardly worth attracting attention to your manifesto if, at the same time, you cause it to be dismissed as a madman's ravings sight unseen. I'm sure his reasons for the targets he chose made sense to him, but I can't really figure them out.

There's a point in the manifesto where he laments that it was only through violence that he would have been able to spread his message at all, that if he hadn't done any sort of extreme action the newspapers wouldn't be printing it (and he was right about that; if he hadn't done anything, the newspapers would never have printed his manifesto). I believe he wanted to motivate others to follow in his wake, hence the use of plural pronouns ("we" and "us" rather than "I"). Kaczynski wanted to outright dismantle the way modern society works, and by presenting his operation as bigger than it was (multiple people vs one guy in a tiny cabin in the middle of nowhere), I think his hope was that if he kept going at it then eventually other like-minded individuals would follow suit and make that aspect of the manifesto a reality.

The targets themselves probably weren't important to society at large, but I believe Kaczynski's own negative experiences in Harvard colored his perception and caused him to go after figures in higher education in particular. Had he succeeded in convincing others, I think his plan would have been to have his followers start going after people who actually mattered. Unfortunately for Kaczynski, not only did he fail to attract a large following (at least a following willing to commit violence on his behalf), but the relative unimportance of his targets meant that he didn't even cause a dent in the grand scheme of things.

 

[AnOminous]

Unfortunately for Kaczynski, not only did he fail to attract a large following (at least a following willing to commit violence on his behalf), but the relative unimportance of his targets meant that he didn't even cause a dent in the grand scheme of things.

It's odd reasoning. I used to think it was something akin to "propaganda of the deed" as originated by anarchist philosopher Mikhail Bakunin. However, at least in its currently understood form, probably most associated with ancoms, the deed was itself supposed to be the propaganda that inspired action by others. In Kaczynski's case, the deed was to extort the publication of his manifesto, an odd and rather autistic way of going about it.

The victims were somewhat connected to the stated goals, but not in any critically important way, such as murdering an oil magnate or assassinating a politician, and Kaczynski craved no real notoriety for himself. He just wanted his message to be heard.

Maybe he was too autistic, but while just being an academic writing an obscure manifesto would not have gotten his word out, what he actually did didn't really either, except to fringe elements who already more or less agreed with him. Everyone else tuned him out or dismissed him.

Now, if he'd found an autistic child to act as a mouthpiece and make into a media darling, maybe he'd have done better. . .

 

[Jonah Hill poster]

American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis will forever be known as the best messed up book to ever come into contact with. It blows my mind that Hollywood is making an adaptation of it into a live action T.V. show.

 

[AnOminous]

It's not really a book, but I've seen zines here before. Anyone remember Ben Is Dead? This went from the standard kind of photocopied zine distributed samizdat style to being an actual glossy magazine sold in the magazine rack in shit like Borders.

It ranged from purely psychotic shit to fairly normal coverage of celebrity issues. The main person responsible, Darby, was obsessed with Beverly Hills, 90210 for instance, but it would also do stuff like have interviews with Crispin Glover (the last issue) and nude centerfolds of Jack Kevorkian (yes that exists).

To give a flavor, this is the kind of cover they had during their more popular period.

I just had to buy this particular issue because I was looking through magazines at Borders and suddenly saw a magazine cover that had John Wayne Gacy fucking a goat in the ass while G.G. Allin was murdering someone while shooting heroin into his eyeball.

There was some remarkably good writing in this, surprisingly.

 

[Jaded Optimist]

I have to agree that "Haunted" might have been the most disturbing book, purely because of "guts". Also, the cover being glow in the dark spooked me the first night I read a chunk of it. So much of Palahniuk's writing sticks with you after you are done reading, its quite impressive. I'd say in a slightly similar vein, "Misery" did that for me when I was younger, also "Cujo" evokes a pretty visceral level of feels.

Edit: also "the Premature Burial" by Edgar Allan Poe gave me nightmares (for historical reasons), still my favorite Poe story.

 

[Jan Ciągwa]

Justine by Marquis de Sade.

This book cycles between porn (if you even call it that) and philosophy, and the second part is more scary. You don't agree with his fucked-up characters' arguments, but their logic is very solid which is the scary part. For me it was psychological horror reading it.

 

[Fictional Character]

Justine by Marquis de Sade.

This book cycles between porn (if you even call it that) and philosophy, and the second part is more scary. You don't agree with his fucked-up characters' arguments, but their logic is very solid which is the scary part. For me it was psychological horror reading it.

You don't end up as political prisoner under almost every regime you live through without having at least some good ideas.