Author: Cipriano Bienvenido Bencosme Rosado

While reading The SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas I found many of her ideas strange because she talks about men in a very negative way. I understand that she is criticizing how women are treated in society. I was surprised by how she blames almost every problem on men. On page 1 she says that “To be male is to be deficient emotionally limited” . I found this interesting because of criticizing specific behaviors she makes it sound like all men are the same. I think this makes her argument difficult to agree with even when she brings up problems that are important. 

Another thing that caught my attention was her opinion about money and work. Solanas believes that society would be better if money disappeared and machines did most of the work. On page 2 she writes that “There is no reason for money or for anyone to work more than two or three hours a week at the very most” . I found this idea interesting because work and money are such a part of everyday life that it is strange to imagine a society without them. At the time I think she makes everything sound too simple as if removing money and changing society would automatically solve its problems. 

Overall I think The SCUM Manifesto is an extreme text. I can understand that Solanas wanted to criticize the way society treated women. I do not agree with the way she generalizes an entire group of people. What stood out to me most was how she goes from criticizing society to suggesting that almost everything, about it needs to be destroyed. It made me think about how anger can make someone see the world in a different way. For me the book is interesting to read because it makes arguments but it also makes me question whether the solutions she proposes would actually make society better. 

For my research paper I want to study how the Protocols of the Elders of Zion became useful to propaganda. The Protocols was an antisemitic text that pretended to be the record of secret meetings where Jewish leaders were supposedly planning to control governments, money, the press and society. The text was first published in Russia in 1903. Was later exposed as a forgery but it continued to spread to other countries.

I want to focus on the connection between the Protocols and Adolf Hitler. The Nazis did not create the Protocols. They found it useful because some of its ideas matched the antisemitic beliefs they wanted to spread. Hitler referred to the Protocols in Mein Kampf and Nazi leaders continued to use the text and its ideas in propaganda. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum explains that Hitler and other Nazi leaders knew the Protocols was not a historical document but they still used it to spread their message.

My main research question will be: How did Nazi leaders use the ideas from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support propaganda and why was the text useful even though it had already been exposed as a forgery? To answer this I want to look at the Protocols, Mein Kampf and other examples of Nazi propaganda. I also plan to use sources from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and scholarly articles from Simpson Library. I want to focus on how ideas about money, government, the press and control were presented.

I think this topic is interesting because it shows how a false document can still have a historical impact. The fact that the Protocols was known to be a forgery but was still used by Nazi leaders makes me want to understand why propaganda can be effective when the information, behind it is not true. This research could also help me understand how the Nazis used existing ideas and turned them into a political message.

Visiting the US Holocaust Memorial Museum was different from most museums I have visited before. When I first walked in, I knew the museum was going to be serious, but I did not really know what to expect. There were a lot of pictures, objects, and information about people who lived during the Holocaust. Seeing all of this in person felt different than just learning about the Holocaust in a class or reading about it online. 

One thing that really shocked me was learning about the experiments that were done on prisoners. I had heard about this before, but seeing the information in the museum made it feel much more real. What also shocked me was seeing some of the uncensored photos of the experiments. They were very difficult to look at, but at the same time, seeing the images without being censored made me understand more clearly what people actually went through. It was honestly crazy to see those images in person because they made the history feel much less distant. 

Another thing that stood out to me was seeing the personal side of the Holocaust. There were stories and pictures of real people and families, and that made the history feel more close to me. Sometimes when we learn about historical events, we only think about the big numbers and important people. At the museum, I was thinking more about the individual people who had normal lives before everything changed. 

Overall, I think the visit was an important experience for me, I learned things, but more than that, the museum made me think about how easily people can become numbers when we only study history from a textbook. Seeing the personal stories, the photographs, and learning about what happened to people made the Holocaust feel much more close to me. I left the museum thinking more about the people who lived through it and how important it is to remember what happened. 

Before I read the introduction, I did not know that Mein Kampf was written in two volumes. The introduction tells us that the first volume, A Reckoning, was published in 1925. The second volume, The National Socialist Movement followed in 1926. The book grew very popular in Germany especially after Hitler rose to power. The introduction states that millions of copies were eventually sold, showing how widely the book spread during that time (pp. Xxvi–xxvii). 

I noticed that many ideas in Mein Kampf were not brand new. D. Cameron Watt shows that Hitler was influenced by ideas that already existed in Germany—nationalism, antisemitism, racial theories and the desire for German territory. The introduction also describes how Hitler used ideas about race and German identity throughout the book. This was interesting to me because it shows that Mein Kampf was tied to ideas present in German society not invented out of nowhere (pp. Xxx–xxxiii). 

The introduction also discusses how Hitler grew as a speaker and how propaganda became vital to his movement. It explains that Hitler learned to use speeches and political messages to reach audiences. Later, the introduction shows how his ideas were presented with repeated political messages. This helped me see why the book matters not for what Hitler believed but also for how those ideas were communicated to the public (pp. Xxxix–xli). 

I also found the history of the book interesting after publication. The introduction explains that Mein Kampf was translated into English and that debates arose about how the book should be understood. It also tells us that British officials had access to the book, before World War II and that some of its statements were taken seriously because they revealed Hitler’s goals. The introduction makes it clear that reading the book in its context is important as some ideas later linked to the actions of the Nazi government (pp. Xlvii–li). 

Chapter V: The World War 

In Chapter V, Hitler talks about the beginning of World War I and how he personally reacted to it. He describes the period before the war and then talks about the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the conflict between Austria and Serbia. He presents the war as something that was going to happen and describes Germany’s involvement as a fight for the future of the German nation. He also talks about joining a Bavarian regiment and his experience going to the front. 

One thing that stood out to me was how strongly he describes his feelings about the beginning of the war. He says that he was “overwhelmed by impassioned enthusiasm” when the war started (p. 210). I found this interesting because he does not describe the war only as something dangerous, but also as something meaningful to him personally. Later, he describes his experience as a soldier and how important the war became in his life. I think this part helps show how much his personal experience influenced the way he thought about politics and Germany. 

Chapter VI: War Propaganda 

Chapter VI is mainly about propaganda and how Hitler believed it should be used during a war. He argues that propaganda is a means to reach a larger goal and that it should be directed toward the masses instead of educated people. He also says that propaganda should focus on simple ideas, emotions, and repetition. He criticizes German propaganda during World War I and explains why he believed the enemy’s propaganda was more effective. 

The part that I found most interesting was how directly he explains that propaganda should be made for ordinary people and repeated many times. He says, “It has to appeal forever and only to the masses!” (p. 230). Later, he says that propaganda needs to repeat simple ideas again (p. 239). I found this interesting because he is basically explaining how he thinks people can be influenced through simple messages and repetition. It also made me notice that Chapter VI is less about the war itself and more about how people can be persuaded to think about the war in a certain way. 

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a text that was published in Russia in 1905. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was presented to the public by Sergei Nilus, who claimed that the Protocols were a document. The introduction also says that a copy of the original could be seen at the British Museum Library. Soon after the Protocols were published many copies were reportedly bought at the time. 

The Protocols are written as if the Protocols contain the plans of a group that wants to control governments and society. Throughout the Protocols it talks about money, politics, the press, education and government. For example one section of the Protocols talks about controlling newspapers and information so that people only receive the information that this group wants them to see . 

It is important to know that the Protocols are not considered records of secret meetings. The Protocols are widely documented as a forgery and as a conspiracy text. Because of this the claims in the Protocols should be understood as part of the Protocols’ propaganda not as facts. The Protocols use the idea of a group controlling society to create fear and suspicion. 

One thing I noticed was how much the Protocols talks about money and power. One part says that “the power of capital is greater than the prestige of the Crown” . I found this interesting because it shows how the text connects money with political power. It also made me notice how often money and control come up throughout the Protocols

While reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, one thing that I found strange was how the text talks about a secret group controlling almost everything. It talks about governments, money, the press, and the way people think. What surprised me was how seriously the speakers talk about these ideas. They do not really question what they are saying. They just present it like it is the truth. 

Another thing I noticed was how much the text talks about control. The speakers want to have power over governments and over the information that people receive. I found this interesting because they seem to believe that controlling what people know is one of the easiest ways to control society. Some parts were also confusing to me because the text keeps connecting many different problems to the same group. 

The part that stood out to me the most was the way the text talks about money and power together. It makes money seem like one of the main ways to influence governments and people. I found this interesting because even though the text is focused on a secret plan, a lot of the ideas keep coming back to things that are common in society, like politics, money, and the media. 

Overall, I found the text strange and uncomfortable to read. What stayed with me the most was how confident the speakers were about their ideas and how they connected almost everything to control. I did not always understand why they were making certain connections, but that was also what made the text interesting to me. 

The Marquis de Sade was an aristocrat and writer who lived from 1740 to 1814. He came from the class of pre-revolutionary France but his personal life was full of scandals, legal problems and imprisonment. He was imprisoned at the Bastille in 1784. While he was there he worked on The 120 Days of Sodom. Because he was afraid that the manuscript would be taken away from him he had to write it 

One of the interesting things about the book is how it was originally written. Sade wrote the manuscript on a roll of paper made from 33 pieces of paper connected together measuring almost 12 meters. He wrote it in small handwriting so that it could be rolled up and hidden. He started it in October 1785. Finished the manuscript in only 37 days. However the work was never completely finished. Only the first section was fully written, while the later sections were mostly left as plans and notes. 

The manuscript also had a history after Sade left the Bastille. In July 1789 just before the Bastille was stormed Sade was moved to another prison. Was not allowed to take his belongings with him. His manuscripts were then taken during the looting of the Bastille. For a time Sade believed that the manuscript had been destroyed. Instead it. Was passed between different people and collections. Eventually it was bought by the Bibliothèque nationale de France in 2021, where the original manuscript is now preserved. 

The book did not become publicly available away. Its first publication was in 1904 than one hundred years after Sade wrote it. Eugen Dühren, the pseudonym of the German psychiatrist Iwan Bloch published the edition in Berlin. Later Maurice Heine produced a new edition between 1931 and 1935 which became a basis for later editions. The book also developed a reputation as a forbidden text because of its content and history of censorship and limited circulation. 

What I find interesting about the context is that the book almost had as complicated a life as its author. It was written secretly in prison almost disappeared was passed between collectors and was not published until, than a century later. Knowing this makes the book feel like a normal novel and more like a text that somehow survived despite everything that happened to it. 

After reading the introduction to The 120 Days of Sodom, one of the first things that surprised me was how organized the book seems to be. I usually expect a book with such disturbing ideas to be more chaotic, but Sade planned almost everything in a very specific way. The introduction explains that the story is divided into different sections and that the four libertines have rules that they follow during the 120 days. I found this strange because the structure makes everything feel almost like a schedule instead of a normal story. It made me think about how someone could plan something so extreme in such a detailed way.  

Another thing that stood out to me was the difference between the people who have all the power and the people who have none. The introduction describes the four libertines as having almost complete control over what happens, while the victims are basically trapped in the situation. What I found interesting is that the book does not just show people doing bad things, but creates a whole system where the people with power can continue doing whatever they want. For me, that was more disturbing than just one bad character because it shows what can happen when nobody can stop the people in control. The introduction also points out that the victims are mostly connected to the wealthy class, which made me think about how money and social position are used in the story.  

I also found the religious part of the book strange. The introduction explains that religion is strongly criticized through some of the characters, including a bishop who is supposed to represent religion but acts in ways that completely contradict that role. That contradiction caught my attention because normally I would expect a religious character to be one of the people who represents morality. Instead, the character makes me question what the title or position of a person really means if their actions are completely different. Coming from DR, where religion is something that is pretty visible in everyday life and in many families, I found this especially strange. I am used to seeing religious figures as people who are supposed to guide others, so seeing that role presented in such a different way was one of the parts that stayed in my mind.  

The biggest thing I took from the introduction is that this is probably not a book that is supposed to be easy to read or easy to forget. The introduction even discusses how difficult it can be for readers because of how repetitive and extreme the material becomes. What interested me most was the idea that the repetition itself might be important. Instead of one shocking moment, the reader keeps seeing the same kind of power and control continue again and again. I think that makes the book uncomfortable on purpose. For me, the most interesting part was how the book made me think about the characters and the amount of control they had. I also found it weird that everything was so organized, even though the things happening in the story were so extreme. I did not really know what to think about it at first, but after reading it, I think the way the book is written is what makes it stand out. 

After reading A Proposal I was honestly confused at first because I did not understand if Swift was being serious or not. At the beginning he talks about mothers and children in Ireland and how many families were struggling. It sounds like he is trying to find a solution to poverty.. Then he suddenly proposes that poor families should sell their babies as food. That was probably the part of the reading for me because I was not expecting the argument to go in that direction at all. He even talks about how much a child would weigh and how it could be cooked, which makes the whole thing more uncomfortable.

Something else that I found strange was how Swift talks about children almost like they are a business product. He calculates how money the parents could make and how the rich people could benefit from buying the children. Coming from the Dominican Republic this way of talking about families feels especially strange to me because family is usually something people take very seriously even when a family does not have much money. Course I know the situation in the text is from a different time and place but it still made me think about how differently people can look at poverty depending on their society. I also found it interesting that Swift brings religion into the proposal. He says that his plan would reduce the number of Catholics in Ireland, which showed me that the problem was not about poverty but also about religion, politics and social divisions.

The more I read the more I realized that Swift is not really giving a solution. I think he is trying to make people feel shocked about how poor people were being treated. What makes it work is that he uses a calm and serious tone while saying things that are completely horrible. He even says that his proposal would have economic benefits and talks about the money that would circulate in the country. For me that was probably the interesting part because it made me think that sometimes people can become so focused on money and numbers that they stop thinking about the people behind those numbers. I did not love the reading because some parts were very uncomfortable. I think that is also the point. Swift makes the idea so extreme that it forces the reader to pay attention to the problem, behind it: poor people were already being treated as if their lives did not matter.

When I looked at the introduction to The Gospel of Mary, I saw that the text assigns Mary a role which is far more important than is generally expected. It is stated in the introduction that the gospel was composed very early in the history of Christianity, although a large portion of the original text has been lost and only a small part of it has survived as a result of this, making the gospel difficult to understand in its entirety. Despite the sections that are missing, the gospel still illustrates Jesus teaching his disciples about spiritual knowledge and the inner self, and Mary is one of those who appears to understand these teachings better than the rest, thus making her role very significant. 

A particularly interesting aspect is the dispute between Mary and the rest of the disciples, particularly Peter. When Jesus has left, Mary informs the disciples of the teachings which she had received from him. Peter does not think that Jesus would have given a woman teachings that the other disciples did not get. He questions Mary and appears to doubt her since she is a woman. However, Levi supports her and states that the disciples should concentrate on spreading Jesus’s message rather than arguing with Mary. This section illustrates that there were disagreements among the early Christians concerning who had authority and whether women could have important leadership positions. 

To sum up, The Gospel of Mary presents a different view of early Christianity. Rather than containing only the beliefs which later became the most widely accepted, the text indicates that Christians in that early period held various opinions regarding Jesus, spiritual knowledge, and the place of women. The aspect that interested me most was the way in which Mary is depicted as someone who understood Jesus’s teachings and was willing to pass them on to the rest of them. Even though some parts of the gospel are missing, it still offers an interesting insight into the fact that Christianity was still in a state of development and that different voices were included in its history. 

I realised after having read The Gospel of Judas that the way in which this text presents Christianity is quite unlike that of the Bible. A major point of difference lies in its account of creation. It refers to various spiritual beings and states that Saklas took part in the creation of Adam and Eve. The text also dedicates a great deal of space to angels, the stars, and different realms. This is not the same approach as is normally taken in the Bible to explain creation. Since there are these differences, the gospel may be confusing to someone who is familiar with the traditional Christian narrative. 

A major point of difference concerns the way in which Judas is portrayed. In the Bible, Judas is mainly remembered for having betrayed Jesus; in this gospel, on the other hand, Jesus holds private talks with Judas and confides in him information which the other disciples do not get. Judas is therefore treated almost as if he has a deeper understanding of what Jesus is explaining. This alters the way we usually perceive his character. The gospel also contains explanations about the spiritual world which are not typical in most Christian teachings. That is the reason why this text must have appeared problematic to Christians and the Church. 

In summary, The Gospel of Judas offers a wholly different interpretation of some key Christian beliefs. The most notable differences lie in its account of creation, its reference to spiritual beings and the stars, and above all in the way it presents Judas. Because of these differences the gospel is hard to reconcile with the traditional Bible; I believe this is one of the reasons why the text was not included in the Bible. Yet, by reading it we can see that early Christianity had alternative views regarding Jesus, Judas, creation, and the spiritual world. Even though I do not accept all the ideas set out in the text, it is interesting since it illustrates another way in which some people understood Christianity.