Author: Amari Palmer

The Anarchist Cookbook is an guide text explaining how to make many different illegal substances, how to use most kinds of weapons, and how to sabotage government surveillance devices. As interesting as this text was to flip through, I do wonder how it ever got published in the first place.

The text was published in January of 1971, during the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War. The timing of the publishing means that The Anarchist Cookbook would have been fairly popular, as it encouraged anti-government thought and action. In the introduction of the text, Powell writes “It is my firm belief that the only laws an individual can truly respect and obey are those he instills in himself” (pg29). It is these sorts of statements that characterize what anarchists seem to believe; that the government should not govern individuals and that man should create laws to govern himself intrinsically. That is the purpose of the text as well, to give the general public access to what the government has said they should not have and give them the ability to decide for themselves what to use with that knowledge.

Many of the recipes in the Cookbook were surprising to see, since they are not public knowledge and generally illegal. How to grow weed, how to make LSD, and how to use these substances (including in cooking) I thought that people making weed brownies was as far as these recipes could go, so imagine my surprise reading how to make a weed meatball. Beyond the drugs, the Cookbook also explains how to make gas, nitroglycerine, how to fight in hand-to-hand combat, and gun usage. While it can be reasonable to be stunned and giggle at the contents of the text, it is also glaringly apparent how dangerous this information is to have in general circulation. The information in the book is generally illegal or questionable, and while Powell states in the introduction that the text is “not for children or morons” (pg30) there is no guarantee that it wouldn’t fall into the hands of these people. Powell makes a point to explain how dangerous the contents of each section is and the importance of being intentional and not doing things, for lack of a better term, for “shits and giggles”.

Overall, I found this text to be incredibly informative. While I presently do not plan on using anything in this text, you never know when the need for a marijuana meatball will arise.

Following a class discussion on the SCUM Manifesto, I realized that I made the ever grave mistake of seeing men as people. While I stand by what I said in that specific context, men at the time of the writing of the SCUM Manifesto and even now have never taken the time to see women as people either.

Using the SCUM Manifesto not for its violent and outrageous ideas about how to deal with men, it is a commentary on how men treat women without sugar-coating any of the hard to swallow details. Solanas portrays men as lustful animals, which historically they have shown themselves to be.

“Eaten up with guilt, shame, fears and insecurities and obtaining, if he’s lucky, a barely perceptible physical feeling, the male is, nonetheless, obsessed with screwing; he’ll swim through a river of snot, wade nostril-deep through a mile of vomit, if he thinks there’ll be a friendly pussy awaiting him. He’ll screw a woman he despises, any snaggle-toothed hag, and furthermore, pay for the opportunity. Why? Relieving physical tension isn’t the answer, as masturbation suffices for that. It’s not ego satisfaction; that doesn’t explain screwing corpses and babies.” (Pg1)

In the case of using the SCUM Manifesto in current contexts, this text would absolutely be flipped to used in a “boys will be boys” manner. Solanas spends a lot of time talking about the manner and nature of men, which is the primary reason for her aim to destroy and irradicate men. Men often ignore their own behavior and the behaviors of other men by claiming that the heinous actions they commit are inherent to their nature. The argument that human nature is one, something that exists, and two, something that has any weight on the actions of people in an anthropological sense that I think is incredibly stupid. If human nature, or in the is case the nature of men, allows for evil actions like rape and abuse, why would human nature not include the basic decency to not violate others?

Do I completely agree with Solanas, no, but do I understand some of her points, absolutely. Solanas was a true deeprooted misandrist, but if men now were to get a hold of this text today they would somehow turn her into the poster girl of their own twisted version of feminism, as we talked about in class. Without looking at men at their very simplest, as people, men can absolutely be seen as hazards not only to women but to society as a whole, and with that Solanas may be on to something with changing the manner in which the world spins by decentering men, even if she was a little more harsh about it.

The SCUM Manifesto is the most enjoyable text I have read this semester. Valerie Solanas, the author of the text, is a radical feminist, and the text shows this incredibly well. Despite enjoying the reading, I disagree with Solanas on almost every point she makes, as it is clear that she is generalizing all men down to the very worst of their kind.

On page one of the SCUM Manifesto Solanas claims that “To be male is to deficient, emotionally limited: maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples”. This quote sums up the content of the entire text, Solanas believes that men are subhuman compared to woman down to the fact that they are men. Solanas aims to prove this point by breaking down male behavior across multiple topics, mostly sex, and coming to baseless and outrageous conclusions that nobody but her would find plausible. Below are a few direct quotes from the text that show just how odd Solanas’ beliefs about men were.

• “The male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion-” (Pg1)
• “To call a man an animal is to flatter him: he’s a machine, a walking dildo. It’s often said that men use women. Use them for what? Surely not pleasure” (Pg1)
• “Eaten up with guilt, shame, fears and insecurities and obtaining, if he’s lucky, a barely perceptible physical feeling, the male is, nonetheless, obsessed with screwing; he’ll swim through a river of snot, wade nostril-deep through a mile of vomit, if he thinks there’ll be a friendly pussy awaiting him. He’ll screw a woman he despises, any snaggle-toothed hag, and furthermore, pay for the opportunity. Why? Relieving physical tension isn’t the answer, as masturbation suffices for that. It’s not ego satisfaction; that doesn’t explain screwing corpses and babies.” (Pg1)
• “Every man, deep down, knows he’s a worthless piece of shit.” (Pg2)
• “The male has a negative Midas Touch — everything he touches turns to shit.” (Pg2)

Each of these quotes are Solanas’ own generalized ideas about men, ideas that are seemingly based in nothing but misandry. Some of Solanas’ claims can be applied to certain men, but to claim that all men act in this way ignores that a lot of men, even most men, are completely normal. A lot of the things Solanas says about men to rally women to overthrow them are just things that she believes, possibly rooted in her own life experiences. As far as the text goes, it reads in an almost satirical manner; there is just no way anybody believes these things to this extent. Except for Valerie Solanas herself.

Valerie Solanas was a troubled woman who struggled with mental illness. In her 52 years of life she was sexually abused by her father, lived with her abusive, alcoholic grandfather, became homeless multiple times, had one child at the age of 17 who she then never saw again, wrote a play called Up Your Ass and the SCUM Manifesto, gave women tips on how to go against men, attempted to kill Andy Warhol, been imprisoned, been institutionalized multiple times, diagnosed with schizophrenia, all before eventually dying at 52 of pneumonia. Solanas had a great amount going on in her life, and much of it could be used as evidence for her views in the SCUM Manifesto.

Overall, The SCUM Manifesto was a fun read but slightly appalling in content. Solanas is highly prejudiced against men and makes harmful claims about them within the Manifesto. If a man were to have written the same text about women in modern day, most people would jump on him and call him an incel, which is not too far from what Solanas may have been.

Triumph of the Will is Nazi propaganda disguised as a general documentary. It is long, uninteresting, and above all else, sleep inducing. The film does not touch on what most people know of the Nazis now; there is no mention of Jewish people or any other supposed “enemies of Germany”. The film is more about Nazi nationalism; it shows how loved Hitler and his special forces were by the German public, as well as depicted Nazi soldiers and the Hitler Youth as happy to do their jobs and happy to be in the presence of Hitler himself. The film is mostly ambient music with each small break in the music screaming from either Hitler or one of his generals. Hitler himself is INCREDIBLY loud throughout the film, despite it being mostly visual. Every time someone began shrieking speaking, nine times out of ten it was Hitler.

Despite it being extremely boring and me watching most of it with my eyes closed, the documentary does a good job of showing how the general public felt about the Nazi party prior to the Holocaust. People lined the streets to watch the soldiers march and there seemed to be other events, like a showcase in traditional clothing, that people also participated in. The children are also a major tell of the public’s reception of the Nazi party as the views of parents generally shape the views of the children. Many children were shown to be just as in awe of Hitler as the adults were; young men joined the Hitler youth and at one point there was a scene of a toddler (young enough to still be carried) saluting Hitler as he walked by.

This film was a good insight to the often overlooked piece of the Nazi party and helps me understand how their later crimes were mostly ignored by German citizens; they LOVED them, so in most eyes the party could do no wrong.

Abstract:

Frankenstein is often considered the first Science Fiction novel to be written, but what if the contents of this book don’t have to be fiction anymore?  The questions being answered in this essay is can you and should you; could you create Frankenstein’s monster and should you even consider it. The primary claim is that the technology and knowledge that exist in today’s world could be used to create Frankenstein’s Monster either now or in the near future.  While the claim is seemingly outlandish, the paper aims to analyze current scientific advancements and apply them to what is believed to be necessary when creating something like The Monster, not to encourage someone to try to actually complete this experiment.

Additionally, this paper will recognize possible limits that would be present today as well as what warnings are woven throughout the text of Frankenstein itself. The key themes of Frankenstein include dangerous ambition and playing God, both of which can be recognized as potential arguments against being a “Modern Prometheus” today.

While there are no specific sources to be outlined at this moment (other than Frankenstein itself), this paper will employ sources spanning biotechnology, bioethics, psychology, and other organic science disciplines. As far as utilizing Frankenstein as a source, the 1818 edition will be used primarily as it was the initial version of the text and reflects Mary Shelley’s original intentions when writing the book. Some other versions, like the 1838 edition, may be referenced as well in tandem with the 1818 edition.

As someone who has never been to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, I was slightly disappointed. The facts of the Holocaust are extremely hard to swallow, but unfortunately the USHCMM did not open my eyes to any new facts about this horrific event.

Upon walking into the museum, I was greeted with any different faces of a familiar text, Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It was part of a temporary exhibit talking about current antisemitic events and tragedies. This was a small part of the museum that I gave very little thought, but it was still interesting to see all the different versions of PotEoZ in so many different languages.

After leaving the elevator that takes patrons to the fourth floor, the beginning of the exhibit, I was completely caught off guard. The very first thing that you lay your eyes on is a photo (pictured below) of many multiples of burnt bodies stacked on top of each other. After reading the caption of this photo, I believe that this very jarring start was purposeful to 1) show how the soldiers liberating these camps after WWII felt and 2) set the tone for the rest of the story the museum was meant to tell.

The entirety of the 4th floor was a timeline showing the beginning, the end, and much of the details in between. One part of this floor that stood out to me was a visual representation of Hitler’s racial superiority/inferiority theory. The photos show the kind of people that were considered less than in Nazi Germany, with Jewish people placed directly at the bottom of everyone.

The third floor was mostly a representation of life (and death) during the Holocaust. Displayed across the main walkway is an iron sign from Auschwitz, reading “Arbeit Macht Frei” or “Work will make you free”.

Walking underneath it was incredibly chilling; while I got to walk underneath it and out again, there were thousands of others who did not get to do the same. The second and final floor was pretty similar to the third to me, most notably there was a video of Holocaust survivors telling their stories and the stories of those they lost. That, to me, was the hardest part of the museum; to hear these people speak of this event not as historians or experts but as victims broke my heart.

Overall, the USHCMM is worth the visit, but it may not be eye-opening unless you’ve never heard of the Holocaust before.

Author of Mein Kampf, leader of Nazi Germany, the man who’s name has become internationally recognized as a symbol of hatred and evil. Hitler. The scholarly introduction to Mein Kampf written by D. Cameron Watt is mostly a recount of Hitler’s life, but much of Watt’s own opinions are clear through his writing: Mein Kampf is badly written, unreliable, and entirely too long. The translation notes, completed by Ralph Manheim, support the idea of this extremely important text being poorly written. Manheim says that Hitler mostly used facts that confirmed his own ideas, meaning he was outwardly seeking out confirmation bias rather than worrying about making accurate statements. This “style” of writing reflects Hitler’s approach to politics at this time; instead of working to his goals using facts, Hitler builds his “kingdom” on lies that confirm his own beliefs and impose those same beliefs on others.

The 1941 version of Mein Kampf was published during WWII, making it a wartime text. While D. Cameron Watt suggests that very few Nazis would have attempted to read the text in any manner, it is reasonable to assume that many did still own copies out of solidarity with their leader. The distribution of this text sheds insight onto the methods of propaganda used during the Third Reich. The Gettysburg Museum of History houses a rare copy of the 1941 edition of Mein Kampf, labeled the “Wedding Edition”. This wedding edition is named as such because it, and other copies like it, were distributed to newly married couples living in Germany. I believe that this perfectly encompasses the purpose of the text: it is an autobiography, but it is also a method of control.

Much of the content of Mein Kampf is a reflection of Hitler’s life, but the way that he represents his life story is done in a way that allows him to sort of impose his beliefs onto his readers, who at the time would have been immensely susceptible to his influence. These ideas were then forced onto people, not bought casually. As stated earlier, a version of the 1941 edition of Mein Kampf was given to newlyweds as a wedding gift from the government, but the German government also contributed greatly to the overall sales of the 1941 edition for the purposes of distribution for a multitude of purposes.

All in all, Mein Kampf is a text written as a doctrine, something that the followers of Hitler should all own and should all understand. Because of this, the text was often forced onto the people of Germany, but also bought to be studied by scholars in other countries. The structure, content, and distribution of the text are all extremely complex and add to the confusing mindset of Adolf Hitler.

In reading and analyzing chapter 7 and chapter 8 of Mein Kampf I have come to two conclusions: Hitler was an extreme nationalist and he was incredibly adept politically. Separating the text from the author and his actions is incredibly difficult, but these chapters alone can be seen as a man with an unhealthy affection for his country rather than the beginnings of a maniacal dictator hellbent on genocide.

Chapter 7 is a recount of a war fought between Germany and Prussia, in which Hitler was a soldier. As a soldier, much of his nationalistic ideals are represented within the text. He is incredibly critical of the German Army as a whole, claiming on page 244 that there was a “waste of the army’s spiritual heroism” that desperately needed to be resolved. Additionally, Hitler questions the nature of the army’s propaganda, saying “How did propaganda and ingenious influence work on the masses in order to hammer the faith in a final victory into the hearts of the broken fronts!” (p244). I believe that this in part is where Hitler got his idea of mass propaganda from during the Holocaust, he saw first hand how easily a state institution could lie to its people and how easily said people believed it all. Him questioning this was equal parts disgust and intrigue because he both knew the truth about the war but also utilized the same techniques during his time as fuhrer. In Hitler’s soldier recount, his distaste for Jewish people is also made known.

After being injured and sent to a hospital, Hitler saw how integrated Jewish people had became to some of the communities around him. The way Hitler talks about the Jewish people on page 251 shows his disdain for them. He suggest that the entire “production” (which I am assuming is banking) is under the control of “the Jewry of high finance”. What he means by “Jewry” is not clear to me, but his usage of words like “control” shows how he feels about the part that these Jewish people may play in society and the goals that he “observes” within their actions. Also on page 251 he says “Here the Jewish people had really become ‘indispensable’. The spider began slowly to suck the people’s blood out of its pores.” (p251). His use of quotations around the term “indispensable” feels as though he is sneering at the idea and the metaphor provided lends itself to his view of Jewish people. “The spider began slowly to suck the people’s blood out of its pores.”, within this quote the “spider” is clearly a representation of Jewish people, who Hitler suggests is taking from the people, being Germans. He even seemingly suggests that the Jewish people were using the war with Prussia as leverage stating “While the Jew robbed the entire nation and pressed it under his rule, people agitated against the ‘Prussians.'” (p252). Chapter 7 does show Hitler’s uncanny distaste for Jewish people, but it seems more like general prejudice, like what a racist may say or feel when seeing a black person or hispanic person, rather than the very extreme that we now know he gets to, like the KKK.

Chapter 8 follows Hitler’s descent into politics after leaving the army. By this time Hitler had come to the conclusion that Germany was going to collapse, an idea that led Hitler to form the “Social-Revolutionary Party” with German soldiers who shared his sentiments, saying on page 280 that “All of us were more or less firmly convinced that Germany could no longer be saved from the approaching collapse by the parties of the November crime, the Center Party and Social Democracy, but that even the so-called ‘bourgeois national’ formations would never be able to remedy this despite their best intentions.” (p280). Later in the chapter, Hitler says that “Every and even the best idea becomes a danger as soon as it pretends to be an end in itself, but in reality only represents a means to an end; but for myself and all true National Socialists there is only one doctrine: people and country” (p288) which to me means that Hitler understood the dangers of an “end all be all” solution to a supposed problem, but that he was more concerned with his primary belief that there is a connection between people and country that must be held supreme over all else. Directly after the previous quote, another important quote follows: “What we have to fight for is the security of the existence and the increase of our race and our people, the nourishment of its children and the preservation of the purity of the blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland in order to enable our people to mature for the fulfillment of the mission which the Creator of the universe has allotted also to them.” (p289). I believe that this is the most important quote in the two chapters I read of this text as it establishes the basis of Hitler and his followers’ philosophy: that they were a part of a “perfect” race that had to be protected and kept completely pure. This philosophy is what led to, and justified, the mistreatment and eventual genocide of the Jewish people as they were seen as un-pure and imperfect when compared to the Germans.

Like most prejudice, the issue of antisemitism is an issue of delusion. Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a text that furthers this delusion by feeding into the absolute idiocy of antisemites, giving them incorrect claims to base their loathing on.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion was written between August and September in 1903 Russia. The same Russia under the rule of a Tsar that viewed non-Russians and non-Orthodox people as second class, as well as the same Russia that had just saw an anti-Jewish riot that killed almost 50 Jewish people only a few months prior to the publishing of the text. I believe that this political climate at the time of publishing is what allowed the Protocols to get as popular as it has overtime; there were many people in Russia that would 1) believe the bogus claims being made in the text and 2) hate Jewish people enough to continue the spread of the Protocols and the implications beyond themselves.

While the original version of Protocols of the Elders of Zion is written in Russian, the text has been adapted to more languages so that it can reach more people. One of these versions is the 1920 Henry Ford version. Henry Ford was the guy who founded Ford Motor Company, but he was also a raging antisemite who funded the English version of Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is important to remember that this text was found to be fake and a forgery in 1920, yet in the same year it hit the American market to spread its misinformation and, for lack of a better term, bullshit to even more people. Henry Ford had a serious problem with Jewish people, which led him to funding the publishment of Protocols of the Elders of Zion in English, but arguably the worst part is how many copies were actually distributed. Prior to being ordered to take it all back, Ford distributed around 500,000 copies of the text. The fact that there was a market in America for this kind of text is a testament to the mentality of a fairly large amount of Americans in the 1920s.

With the ever increasing popularity of Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it reached the eyes and ears of Hitler, who proceeded to use it as a resource during the Holocaust. By promoting the text to his mindless followers, Hitler was able spread the idea that Jewish people were plotting to take over the world and by proxy instill fear in the German population. Everyone knows what follows afterwards, but the fact that a fake text, one written with no clear purpose outside of further ostracizing Jewish people, can be attributed to one of the greatest tragedies in history truly upsets and baffles me.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an entirely false text written with the intent of turning Christians against Jewish people by instilling a fear that they will destroy society as they know it. This text is seemingly the very beginning of wide spread antisemitism which ends up “justifying” the Holocaust. Any text lending itself to hatred of any one group is a text that should be deeply scrutinized.

Everything about this text bothers me. It contains nothing but baseless claims and fosters unfounded hatred of Jewish people by claiming that they are conspiring to control the press, destroying Christian establishments, and overall have total control of society. Not only does this make zero sense, as there is no source for any claim made in the text, but it also creates unnecessary dilemmas meant to “inspire” people to action, which in this case would be hate crimes and prejudice. The text is incredibly empty in content as it reads like a fanfiction with very little worldbuilding. The author was one, clearly not Jewish, and two, clearly not very good at writing. The text is also repetitive, with the Elders acting like a round table of villainy in every protocol; they plan to control the press, the economies, the governments, everything in the world through some or other manipulation of the “gentiles”.

Overall, Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a text with no value outside of its historical context. It makes Jewish people out to be evil masterminds hellbent on destroying society from every possible sector, which makes no sense. Antisemitism was not new when this text was released, and it is not old news now, but I will never understand how someone could put so much energy into creating a false narrative against a group of people just for the fun of it.

After doing some research into Marquis de Sade, it saddens me to say that 120 Days of Sodom makes complete sense as one of his works. De Sade was an odd man and a true libertine, like the men he wrote about in the aforementioned text. He ended up imprisoned multiple times; not over petty theft or a more general crime, but sexual abuse. The ideas that he had outlined in his manuscript of 120 Days of Sodom did not stay entrapped in his sick and twisted mind; some of them came out. He often threatened his victims lives if they did not do as he asked, cut, whipped, and maimed them, and did acts involving wax and desecration of religious items.

After one of these heinous escapades, de Sade found himself in the dungeon of Vincennes before then being transferred to the Bastille, where he wrote 120 Days. While I’m not completely sure why he wrote books and plays of such a nature, part of me believes that it was out of boredom. When he was imprisoned it would be unlikely that he would be able to act on his…urges, so he would write about them instead. This could be why 120 Days of Sodom was so vile and detailed, especially as a manuscript. It was all of his fantasies laid out on a paper, thinly held together by half of a plot and a cast that has no characterization other than what is explicitly told to the reader in the introduction.

120 Days of Sodom is the fantasy of a disgusting man. I truly believe that there was no other meaning behind the text, no political commentary or otherwise, other than a way for de Sade to blow off steam. The book was off-putting and nasty and so was the author. Marquis de Sade was a grown man writing dirty and, frankly unethical, fanfiction that unfortunately may have a modern parallel out there on the dark web today.

120 Days of Sodom is the most stomach churning, disgusting, and nasty book I have ever had the displeasure of setting my eyes on. Nothing about this book should be celebrated, not in content or structure, as it is, at its very core, a manuscript of twisted man’s terrible fantasy.

Although this book was clearly meant to represent The Marquis De Sade’s dark interests, its content could be used as a warning to the corruption that comes with power. The four libertines are wealthy and powerful men, which is what enables them to be able to indulge in their sexual journeys. The introduction of the text goes into detail about how the men chose their victims for the acts that begin in Part One, but it also talks about how they get said victims. The work of finding these children (to say young men/women would be to distract from the fact that these victims were almost entirely underaged) was delegated to others who would hunt and kill just to bring these kids in to be examined by the libertines. The fact that they were able to find people to do this dirty work for them shows just how rich and powerful they had to have been; people fear what those with money can do to them if they refuse to do as they ask which leads to the rich getting whatever they want.

The four libertines are not the only ones who’s disgusting fantasies are able to be acted upon out of power. The stories told by Duclos include sexual abuse she endured during her childhood by men with the title “Father”. A man with the title of “Father” is generally a priest in a Catholic congregation, someone with immense power over those within the church and one that holds great respect. These men were able to act on their sinful desires because they were less likely to be questioned or prosecuted within the church.

The power that all these men hold is what allows them to be able to carry out their devilish interests, but the money and comfortable lifestyle is what brought them there. Boredom often leads to finding new ways to entertain oneself. For normal people that would entail trying a new hobby, but for those that already have it all they may find pleasure in leaning into things more twisted. While this is a rudimentary hypothesis, I believe that other than serious mental issues, boredom is the chief reason why people with influence and money lean towards mostly unheard of sexual crimes. This seems to be the case not only within 120 Days of Sodom, where victims are locked with their abusers in a castle, but with a similar real life example involving underaged victims and a certain island.

While 120 Days of Sodom can be used for commentary on some of the evil things people do in real life, it is an absolutely horrid book. If it does not have to be read for a grade, do not read it. Spare any innocence you may have left.

“I can think of no one objection, that will possibly be raised against this proposal-“. Well I absolutely can. A Modest Proposal is an entirely satirical text suggesting that the children of poor families be sold as food to wealthier people to turn a profit. The author of this text, Jonathan Swift, goes into detail about how the young children of poor families are useless to society unless used as sustenance, and then into further detail about how they could be used. While this is not my first time interacting with the text, fully reading it for myself proves that Swift’s attempt at utilizing shock factor to bring attention to on ongoing issue was immensely successful.

The time when this essay was published, 1729, was a year of extreme famine in Ireland. This famine and economic crisis is what led to the writing of A Modest Proposal, which is what makes the text both satire and a callout to the issues happening at the time. Although I don’t want to dwell on the historical context of the essay, it still is important to note.

The idea of eating the children of the poor and turning mothers into livestock is used for shock, but that same idea is rooted in the belief that women are good only for motherhood. Swift opens the text with the idea of a female beggar going door to door with her children on her hips and heels. Surely, this is meant set the reader up to sympathize with the idea of giving these mothers a break, but bothered me how there was no mention of a male beggar having a similar condition of caring for children. Of course, for the time period, it makes sense why women are often paired with children and vice versa, but throughout the entire text there is very little mention of men and their role in this proposal.

Swift’s idea to eat babies and breed women for more babies to eat is outrageous, but there is no equivalent claims made in regards to men. The babies have it the very worst since they would be cooked on a spit and eaten. Women would have these meat babies, nurse them till they are fat, and then watch them be sold for eight shillings (about $0.54 today). Men, at the very worst, would be unable to beat the pregnant women in fear of losing the baby/the profit. Even in satire, men have been set apart from the secondary lifeforms that are women and children.

Even though Swift wrote this text entirely as a joke, and in a less inclusive time period, it is still important to point out that even in times of poverty and hardship a man will always be represented above a woman. Women kill their bastard children, women go door to door begging with their children trailing close behind, women have to raise their children, and women have to make the hard decision to sell their children for barely over half a dollar. Men, in this text, have to grapple with none of the actual content of the proposal. They aren’t shown as part of the reason all these extra children exist. They aren’t suggested to also kill their children. They are shown to have no part in the meat baby’s life beyond conception. The men in this text, and during this time, take none of the blame nor responsibility for anything outside of themselves.

The Gospel of Mary is an unfinished writing from the very early days of Christianity. Because of this, one could assume that this text would be confirming of other ideas found within the Bible from the time frame, but it seems to take its own stance on some of the foundational ideas that were established by the other gospels written by the apostles. Sin, something that many practicing Christians believe to be an intangible but very real substance is said to not actually exist by Jesus Himself within the passage, rather that it is something produced by the sinner when acting against what is “Good”. This idea is not necessarily outrageous to me, however it does go against what is generally taught within the Church.

The most astounding thing to me in this passage is the way that Jesus is represented. The apostles and Mary all differ from how they are said to have acted within the Bible, but much of Jesus’ personality and message has remained constant even in a text completely polar compared to other accepted Christian texts. He consistently says “Anyone with two ears capable of hearing should listen!”, a sentiment repeated throughout both the Old and New Testaments. Additionally, He does not encourage the disciples to add or subtract from His teachings, another sentiment not unique to this gospel. Despite all the differences in the people He would have been around, this gospel reaffirms Jesus’ character while calling the others into question.

The conflict between Mary and Peter, and the disciples and Jesus’ message, lends itself to the idea that there is flaw in the gospels that are readily available. The disciples expressed fear in spreading Jesus’ message as is due to the way that He was treated and persecuted for spreading His word. This hesitance could suggest that the gospels and teachings most people do know could have been altered to be “easier to swallow” for the time in order to avoid persecution. This possible change is also seen in Peter’s conflict with Mary, as he accuses her of lying about the word. He suggests that Mary is making up or altering what the Lord actually said to her, which is then quickly shut down by Levi. Peter’s accusations toward Mary could be baseless, but they could also be rooted in past actions of one apostle or another.

Overall, the implications of this passage is hard to place, and with the amount of missing pages I believe that it may never be actually placed or truly studied. The idea of Mary having a gospel is not necessarily a hard to thing to believe, but the content found within said gospel may be what makes it a forbidden text rather than a forgotten one.