Author: FSEM

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is an almost immeasurably important piece of literature. Lacking truth, shrouded in mystery, filled with just enough detail to inspire, it embodies the perfect conspiracy theory. Despite the fact that it’s creation is something we can’t figure out, the impact it’s had on our society is painfully tangible. 

The origins of the Protocols are obscure- nobody knows the who, when, or where of them. Of course, there’s plenty of speculation, but there’s no solid evidence that can confirm or deny the text’s validity. Instead, it sneaks its way out into the world from multiple places, spreading surprisingly quickly. The way in which the text gained traction despite its blatant shortcomings speaks to the desperation of humans. People always want to know why.

 We’re desperate for an explanation, especially when it comes to understanding why things are going wrong. Even though the validity of the protocols has been debunked, and people have worked to spread that fact, their contents have a hold on members of society even in our modern life. The reason for that, in my opinion at least, is the way that the text plays into our fears, our desire for an explanation, and our relief in finding an explanation that holds us personally accountable. The Protocols are vague in a way that’s so convenient for someone looking to take the pressure off themselves (which is most of us). The Jews are everywhere, touching everything, and we can’t see them, but surely anyone who disagrees with us has got to be one of them. It’s perfect for finger pointing from either side of the aisle, and its murky origins allow one to implicate anybody in this great scheme of trickery. All our problems, whether they’re racial tensions or religious ones, are not matters that can be solved by understanding one another, but are unsolvable ones perfectly orchestrated by the Jews to create chaos. Their power lies in their convenience and their untruth.

The introduction to 120 Days of Sodom that we read provided insight into the history of the text itself, as well as the disturbing history of the author, Marquis de Sade. Not having read this introduction beforehand left me wondering as to what kind of person would be capable of creating a work like 120 Days of Sodom, so I looked forward to reading this piece. Sade’s background reads like a thriller; it’s full of drama, affairs, prison breaks, you name it. His life, in many ways, reflects the book that he wrote. His noble ancestry, history of kidnapping young children, and committing violence against women is directly in line with his text, if only a bit more subtle (it’s scary that that’s true). Knowing his wild and immoral tendencies, one can reasonably conclude that 120 Days, which he wrote in prison, could have been a collection of his wildest fantasies. Maybe he depicts acts that he wishes he himself could have conducted, displayed underneath a facade of a plot complete with puppet characters in order to avoid directly admitting to a desire to complete these acts. 

The characters in Sade’s work also point us in the direction of another motive for writing 120 Days of Sodom. The four messieurs who engage in diabolical acts within the secluded walls of the mansion all come from noble or respectable backgrounds. They are a bishop, a judge, an aristocrat, and the brother of an aristocrat. As Marquis de Sade himself was nobility, the less than positive manner in which he depicts his four messieurs suggests that he felt a great deal of animosity towards nobility on a whole. We spent time in class arguing that this dislike may have shaped the text, maybe even serving as a chief inspiration in the creation of the book. 

That being said, one detail in the introduction stood out to me: when Sade went to prison, he still demanded that he be looked after and tended to by his wife, who he forced to run errands throughout the city for him. He told her that he was still nobility, and that he was to be treated as such. How could he be so resentful of his noble background while at the same time relishing in the privileges he received because of that background in the first place? Maybe his sense of entitlement came not from a place of respect or appreciation for nobility in general, but from a massively overinflated ego. His works and his life all point to an overall inability to recognize the humanity of other people- perhaps he was so blind to that because he couldn’t see anything other than his own delusional sense of importance.  We’re not ever going to be able to know why exactly Marquis de Sade wrote 120 Days of Sodom, and overall that might be a good thing. To have a completely accurate insight into and understanding of why he was able to write what he did, one would have to wander too close to the state of mental illness and instability that he possessed. Overall, this book and the man that wrote it allowed me to see a side of humanity that I never would have otherwise. While I’m deeply disturbed by what I read, I also have a greater appreciation for the complexity of the human psyche and its profound capacity for evil. In order to view the world more fully and accurately, I think it has been worthwhile to see the underbelly of our society.

The first thirty days of 120 Days of Sodom, while definitely disturbing, pale in comparison to the pure torture described in the later days. Any semblance of artistry or greater meaning is lost to me throughout the rest of the book. Sade describes horror after horror, written in a long list that becomes progressively more terrifying.  These pages reveal what I can only describe to be the true evil Sade possessed within himself. 

Whereas I feel that one could feel some kind of dark fascination towards the first part of the book due to the taboo nature of its contents, the later parts transition into something so disgusting that there was nothing at all to be gained from reading it. The book is an insight into the worst of humanity, and it’s something I never needed to see. I don’t think there’s any sort of value to be found in these latter portions of the book, whether it’s for academic pursuits or not. All I really have to say is that I read only a few pages of the last section of the book- it made me feel physically ill. While I can understand the book having been assigned, and the first section being worth reading, the rest of the text is too appalling to me. It’s just a list of heinous crimes against humanity written by a disgusting human being who represents everything wrong with our world. I hated it.

Marquis de Sade’s “120 Days of Sodom” lives up to the expectations that surround it. Really, truly, never in my life have I read something more disturbing and revolting than Sade’s work. I’m going to cover the first thirty days in this post. They’re the ones that Sade wrote out in excruciating detail- every act fully imagined, choreographed and fleshed out in his head and on the pages. 

The book starts out shocking, with a story of child molestation beginning on the third page of my text. There’s no easing into anything. Sade dives straight in without paying heed to the disturbing nature of his writing, making clear to his reader that the acts described are mundane in the world that he’s created. As each day goes by, the acts Duclos tells of become more and more perverted. Her last story on the thirtieth day consists of a man pleasuring himself by threatening to burn her alive. While each tale is horrifying individually, and the actions of the four friends described by the narrator are too, the text as a whole quickly becomes monotonous. At some point, it becomes difficult to be surprised by the sexual perversions of the characters. 

There doesn’t appear to be an art to the storytelling- Sade is just throwing as many disgusting things at you as he possibly can. After a few days of the narrative, I started to feel numb to what I read. I am in some ways grateful of this, because the emotional impact some of the passages had on me was intense and not sustainable. I in no way finished the first thirty days feeling like I had gained anything. It didn’t feel like there was some moral of the story, some subversive message that Sade was trying to get across. It didn’t feel like there was a greater meaning to me; the book just feels like the perverted imaginings of sick and twisted individual left with nothing better to do than daydream. I just felt gross.

The one other sense of meaning that I drew from the reading was that Sade was trying to shine a light on the more disturbing aspects of human nature. In between stories, the characters in the book would often ask Duclos to go into further detail about the appearances of those she told stories about. They felt that if they didn’t know exactly what happened, and exactly what shape the penis attached to these men was, they couldn’t fully understand the darker nature of men. Maybe that’s the moral to the story, but I don’t think that Sade did a very good job of bringing that across. Had he focused more of his writing on the discussion and exploration of this topic, rather than the excruciatingly detailed descriptions of sexual acts, I maybe would have been more sympathetic. Instead, the book feels self-indulgent in the worst ways.

“Book Breaking and Book Mending” by Douglas Hunter brings up the stark contrast between literature written for academia and literature written for the sake of writing literature. Hunter deconstructs the whole idea of “gutting” a book, a technique of consuming scholarly literature that is essential in keeping up with the workload given in a graduate school setting. While writing books in a way that makes them breakable is effective and almost necessary in today’s academic climate, Hunter feels that there’s a better way to write, and I agree.

In today’s academia, accessibility and the lack thereof is something that is being addressed more and more. Like Hunter mentions, the language used in literature is often so confusing and overly complex that it’s hard to digest. I think it’s important that knowledge should be spread as far as it can reach, and I don’t feel like I alone hold that sentiment. If that’s a goal of academia, then a course correction needs to be made- writing in a way that excludes people who aren’t as deeply entrenched in the topic as the author actively prevents people from getting involved. What’s the point of knowledge if not to share it? 

Knowing that Hunter wrote the article, and that it made its way into the hands of college students, it’s obvious that people know there’s a problem when it comes to accessibility in academia. I want to know what’s going to be done to fix it. As distasteful as the idea of gutting a book is, it’s going to take a fundamental shift in the way that graduate school students learn for change to happen. When it’s necessary to take in massive amounts of information, that task is easier to accomplish when reading becomes formulaic.  In works written more like novels, it’s hard to get the important stuff down without reading the whole book cover to cover. How can graduate students be successful if they’re supposed to read hundreds of books but have to read each word to learn what they need to? What’s going to have to change in order to make the shift that Hunter calls for?

The history of women in Christianity is symbolized well in the Gospel of Mary. Left out of Biblical canon and lost for a great period of time, Mary’s gospel is one that has been overlooked and maybe even brushed over. Her gospel and the circumstances surrounding it are a testament to the oppressive and controlling sentiments of men in Biblical times onwards.

The Gospel of Mary was first found some time around 1896, but not published until 1983. This version was written in Coptic, and two Greek translations have since been found as well. Despite the significance of Mary’s gospel, it took nearly a century for her work to be published for the public to see. Hidden for thousands of years, the Gospel of Mary has been deliberately suppressed or forgotten from its creation to near modern times. Today, it’s truth and authenticity is actively denied by the Christian community. The way in which the work has been rejected and hidden speaks, I think, to the misogyny that has pervaded within society since the time of Jesus himself.

A female apostle as the most important confidante and companion of Jesus is something that was considered unworthy of publication when the Bible was being written, and maybe even not important enough to publish throughout the majority of the twentieth century.  Mary being more than just a prostitute undermines the message that women are inferior and meant to be subservient. The idea that a woman could be a figure of importance and power in the text that informs essentially all of Christian life was so detestable that Christians actively reject it, even when the gospel is considered authentic. 

Had Mary’s gospel been included in the Bible, and her importance made significant, I think that the way our society functions would be radically different. Jesus trusts Mary so much that he confides in her things he never does to his male apostles, elevating her to a platform that is more important than the men. She is even so knowledgeable as to offer the men advice. Her role in the gospel plays into and out of the traditional role of women in fascinating ways. Women today are often perceived as nurturers who soothe and calm men, and Mary does just that in her gospel. However, she holds knowledge that the men are not privy to, and is loved more than the men by arguably the most important figure in western culture. Had society had such a powerful female figure to look up to, I wonder if women’s opinions would have held more weight than they did. 

As mentioned in my comments on the Gospel of Judas, I find it amazing that what is supposed to be Christianity’s most true, trustworthy, and important text has actually been touched and tainted so much by human bias. What is taught as concrete is, in reality, complex and unreliable. Ancient figures shaped the way that our society functions today, and it’s difficult to shake the biases and half-truths that have informed our way of life. 

Here are the links to some of the other sources I consulted in learning about the Gospel of Mary: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/mary.html

https://www.allaboutgod.com/gospel-of-mary-faq.htm

How do we accept Christianity when there are entire gospels that were left out? Christians advertise the Bible as well, the Bible. It’s truth is absolute. It’s words are ones to live by. It’s legitimacy is called into question by the discovery of the Gospel of Judas. This ancient gospel tells a radically different story as compared to what’s found in the Bible today.   

In resurfacing, the Gospel of Judas sheds light on the many gospels that existed in the early stages of Christianity.  As gospels were weeded out and erased from history, the kind of Christianity that we know today began to take shape. I’m no longer religious, but I went to church when I was younger, and I understand that the Bible is supposed to be the word of God. Having read the Gospel of Judas, I see that the word of God was handpicked by humans, which takes away from the “holy,” prophetic feel that scripture had for me before. 

Christianity has been carefully crafted and structured in order to communicate a cohesive story.  It’s got good guys and bad guys, good and evil, right and wrong. I personally struggle with the Bible’s definitions of these things, and some bitter part of me relishes in the Gospel of Judas- not necessarily it’s teachings, but the way in which it contradicts a text that people treat as undeniable truth, used to deny the humanity of selected groups of people. The conviction with which people condemn others is based on a foundation that’s no longer concrete; it’s built on sand rather than stone. 

Truth is often so much more than what is presented to us.  There’s always another perspective to be heard, one that doesn’t align with yours, one that can shift the way the world works. If the Gospel of Judas had been preserved and added to the Bible that we now follow today, Christian theology would be entirely different. It really could be entirely different right now. Christians have the opportunity to rework their understanding of the Bible, but instead the Gospel of Judas is dismissed by the pope himself. The Christian community is collectively deciding to reject what very well may be authentic. There is no reason for the Gospel of Judas to be wrong and those of other disciples like Mark and Luke to be right other than that people don’t like it. I think that speaks to the power of people as well as their sheer hypocriticalness. The most divine text of Christianity, given to humanity by God, is constricted by what humanity prefers to believe. 

I’m attaching links to the sources of documents I used to learn more about the Gospel of Judas below: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5327692

https://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/gospel-of-judas.htm

Vincent Blasi’s “Milton’s Areopagitica and the Modern First Amendment” discusses the modern day applications of Milton’s work on freedom of the press.  Blasi starts by giving Milton’s background and the context of the time period, explaining what led to the creation of Areopagitica. Milton’s intense dedication to his faith is evident in every aspect of his life, and its influence is clear in the work Blasi analyzes. 

Milton presented his views with a whole-hearted attitude, and came from a place of sincerity and desire to do good. The censorship he endured for sharing his closely held beliefs helped him understand the unfairness of limiting free speech. That being said, his idea of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in general was undeniably narrow, even if he was more open than others of his time.  Milton advocated against licensing of books, but he mostly just wanted to be able to publish his own ideas without running into trouble. He dismissed the views of Catholicism “because he thought they had nothing to contribute to the quest for spiritual truth.” The kind of purity that he was searching for, in his opinion, couldn’t be found within the bounds of the Catholic mindset. He echoes the anti-Catholic sentiment widely felt in his country during the time period, and he played into this when he presents an argument against the Licensing Order to Parliament.

A key component of Milton’s Areopagitica is the necessity of hearing different viewpoints in order to facilitate valuable discourse that leads towards a more good and moral society.  This concept of freedom of speech and the importance of allowing all viewpoints to be widely available is central in America’s politics today as we grapple with truth, tolerance, and how to define these terms. The problem of licensing in Milton’s life was about which perspectives were valuable and worth being heard- as decided by governmental figures interested in keeping themselves in power. Today, the problem of freedom of speech is also about which perspectives are valuable and worth being heard. Who has the right to decide whose thoughts are valuable and whose aren’t? 

One of Milton’s problems with Catholicism is their lack of tolerance for other religions, their belief that what they say should go. Tolerance is a commonly used word in America right now, and there’s much debate over what real tolerance is. Is it tolerant to let people who advocate for the death and destruction of another group of people be heard? Should we allow for groups like this to spread their viewpoints? Milton operated on a sense of faith that in the end, goodness would prevail. His belief in God allowed him to step back and trust that what was right would triumph over wrong.

  Despite his deep ties to religion, Blasi argues that Milton still had valuable insight on freedom of speech. In advocating against censorship, he reminds the reader that debate and discourse is fundamental in maintaining a strong and democratic society. If we make an effort to push down hateful ideologies and hush them away, they spread more strongly. I think that’s evident in the way that so many felt racism was no longer a problem, when in fact that hatred was just hiding under the surface (at least to the upper middle class white society that I grew up in). We need to be looking deeply at these harmful thoughts and engaging with them. In the internet’s echochamber, we need more interaction and more struggle. Milton felt that it was essential, and I agree. You can’t stop evil people from spreading evil ideas by ignoring them or covering them up. You have to actively fight against evil, and the most effective way to do that is by exposing it.