Books and their destruction should be seen as a dichotomy, rather than a cause-and-effect sort of thing. In the same way that we have a clear dichotomy between Communism and Capitalism and the East and West, so too do we have those who wish to have books and those who would prevent their dissemination. The fact of the matter is that books cloud the judgment of those who read them, and even books without particularly radical content introduce all sorts of thought-patterns and confusion. I am told, for example, that in Greece there was a philosopher called Plato, among the first to dedicate philosophy to writing. Plato, in his writings, sought to confuse his readers by introducing them to a character called Socrates, whose methods involved questioning the interlocutor until he had rendered him totally confused. The purpose of this was to illustrate Plato's central philosophy--that what appears to be true is not necessarily. Setting aside the obvious and dangerous absurdity of that, we can see quite clearly how books would easily confuse us and muddle our judgements--Plato's writing was effective because the reader could not directly question or interrupt Socrates, but Socrates could expound as he wished.

Granted, there was clearly a time when books were not necessarily burned, but before then there was no need of firemen and we must suppose that the organization did not exist. However, our society has progressed a great deal since Plato's day. As Plato himself argued, writing dulls the memory and thr ability to think clearly. Here is our dichotomy then. Those that would publish books are those who would show that black is white and elevate some to stature above the rest, since in history it was always those who could show their education by the number of books they had read that were listened to, though their words were dishonest. This is the sort of thing that we see in certain eastern dictatorships. Instead, by destroying books, we preserve true equality--education is a matter of equality for all, and no one is confused by thr inexplicable, as all is made comprehensible. This is the great revolutionary measure of America, thr implementation of true equality.

So no, books were not published simply so that they may be destroyed. But we know better now, and in the never-ending struggle between social structures that defines our current world those that would preserve books represent a faction inherently opposed to thr equality of education