Author: Haley Harris

According to the preface, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was published in 1905 at Tsarskoye Sielo, Russia. As of 1920, a copy of the original is displayed at the British Museum Library.

This work presents itself as the meeting minutes of a group called the “Elders of Zion” and claims that the Jewish leaders were planning to gain cover over every aspect of life. However, these meetings never actually occurred, and these “Elders” didn’t exist. It has been found that the idea of a Jewish conspiracy present in the text can be traced back the older European antisemitic stereotypes.

When The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was originally published, it was during a period of instability in the Russian Empire, and the idea antisemitism was on the rise. As Russian moved towards the 1905 Russian Revolution, this work was used to encourage persecution of Jewish communities and provided justification to violent attacks against Jewish people.

By the 1920s, this text had been translated into multiple languages and appeared all over the world. In the United States, Henry Ford directed a publisher called The Dearborn Independent, which published The International Jew series. This series adopted elements in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Since Ford was an influential person, from my understanding, he used his platform to distribute and circulate antisemitic ideas. The distribution of these thoughts increased and amplified social fears and existing antisemitism.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was also used by Nazis. During the Hitler’s reign, publications were produced that further promoted conspiracy claims found in the text. This was useful to them because it helped spread hatred and fear towards Jewish people.

In my opinion, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are extremely historically significant. This is because the reception of the work demonstrates how a completely fake and fabricated conspiracy theory can disguise itself as a legitimate leaked document and then be used as propaganda years later.

What I find interesting about the background of this text is how much it has been translated. Too many, it was known that these protocols were 100% fake, but it kept spreading and gaining traction.

Overall, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an antisemitic propaganda filled with fake news in order to grow antisemitism.

I’m not sure exactly where to start with this text. There are so many things that go on in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

First off, the preface of the text ends with “Gentiles-Beware!” Which is telling non-Jewish readers to watch out and protect themselves from what will be detailed. Moving on to the introduction, the narrator acknowledges that these protocols won’t read like meeting minutes and will lack some information. However, the narrator claims that the missing evidence is further proof that the conspiracy has a lot of secrecy and power. I find this interesting because the author is trying to justify that the text shouldn’t be doubted because of the lack of evidence.

As the text progresses to the protocols, it starts by saying that non-Jewish people are selfish and power-hungry. It states that people cannot govern themselves because people become divided, which allows a coup. They state that they are already manipulating these groups of people to create chaos to provide an opening for their takeover. I believe the purpose of this idea is to stir up fear that these protocols are already in motion. The piece states that Jewish people believe whoever is strong enough should rule and that the current government is weak and flawed because if one system goes down, the whole government will go down. It also says that when they come into power, the non-Jewish people will bow down for the right to exist.

The text also describes how once the Jewish people take power, they will go to war if a country opposes them. From my understanding, the text is saying that violence is the answer to demonstrate power and domination.

One of the big ideas in the text is the degradation of individual thoughts and ideas. Once power is seized, they will reeducate the public using their doctrines and teach obedience. As education continues onto universities, these schools will teach people not to question things and will remove education programs that may upset people, and the program left will teach people to love their leader. I believe that the “upsetting” education programs are programs that cause cognitive dissonance and make them question the morality of their leadership. These protocols also claim that the Jewish people will erase everything from the public’s mind except the bad parts of the non-Jewish government. From my interpretation, the main point of reteaching people is to lose independent thinking and create minds that solely rely on the government for knowledge and ideas. I believe this interpretation is furthered by the fact that this government plans not to let people older than 55 serve in court because it is harder to control someone who can be “set in their ways.”

Another big idea I grasped was the power of the press. The text described how the Jewish government will control the press by using stamps and controlling certain publications. The idea with stamps is that a stamp is needed and paid for to publish information. By requiring a stamp, the government will be able to control what is published. When getting a stamp for a book shorter than 300 pages, it will be more expensive which will cause writers to write more books and therefore decrease readership. To me, this seems like a way to decrease creative and independent thinking by placing taxes upon it. Additionally, the government will control a variety of newspapers. They will have an official one that supports the government, an unofficial one that attracts people who are lukewarm or indifferent, and a paper that is in complete opposition to the government. The papers that pose a negative view of the government will be used to find people who doubt or reject the system. From my interpretation, I believe the text says that this paper will also have false information, so it doesn’t provide a valid negative point against the new Jewish government. This government will also control papers tailored to different political parties and, to me, the reasoning behind this is to make people feel like their parties are different; however, these parties only desire what the government deems acceptable. By controlling the forms of publishing, the government will make people feel whatever they want and silence the people who oppose them. I feel like this control over the press is a way of saying that the press can control the masses and make their coup more effective.

Overall, I do understand that everything in the text is made up. However, I did analyze it like the text was real because that is how people used to perceive this work. I believe that interpreting the writing like it isn’t real goes too far into the context of the book, which is not the focus of the blog post.

120 Days of Sodom was written during the Ancien Régime. This was a period with a strict social hierarchy. During this time, there was increasing social and economic unrest due to the population growing and an economic crisis. In France, an era of Enlightenment was rising which challenged religion and absolute monarchy. These events are reflected in my interpretation of the text. A strict social structure is seen as the four libertines distinguish themselves from the other people in the castle by controlling their schedule and when they can use the bathroom. Additionally, themes of enlightenment can be seen in the text. This theme can be observed because the libertines were actively against religion and punished the girls in the castle who were caught praying.

Marquis de Sade wrote 120 Days of Sodom in 37 days during his imprisonment in the Bastille. De Sade was a French nobleman, writer, and active in politics. During de Sade’s life, he was imprisoned multiple times. From 1763-1768, de Sade was arrested for blasphemous sexual acts and abusing a widow named Rose Keller. In 1772, he was sentenced to death for sodomy and poisoning; however, he escaped this fate by running to Italy. In 1777-1785, he was imprisoned for moral corruption and scandalous conduct, and this is where de Sade wrote 120 Days of Sodom. During the French Revolution, he had a chance at freedom, but in 1801, de Sade was arrested for circulating erotic texts. He ended up dying at Charenton asylum. The constant imprisonment for scandal leads me to question whether de Sade wrote this text as a way to defy his imprisonment or to expel his inner desires and cravings. I wonder if he wishes he was one of the four libertines because they did what they wanted and didn’t face any consequences.

De Sade’s description of the text also led me to question who exactly he thinks his readers are. He constantly refers to the readers through the text and exclusively uses male terminology. My only idea as to who the readers could me are the other inmates in the Bastille. Or maybe he only uses male terminology because female literacy was so uncommon? De Sade also uses “we” and “our” as a narrator. From my interpretation, this could suggest that his mental state wasn’t the best or there was another author (which is unlikely).

Overall, the context surrounding the text makes me question more and more de Sade’s personal message by writing 120 Days of Sodom.

I don’t know where to even begin with this text. 120 Days of Sodom is a disgusting work and depicts various unmentionable acts and ideas.

At first, I was extremely confused. I didn’t understand the dynamics between the four libertines and their wives. However, Sade clarifies this in his extensive introduction. This introduction was long and descriptive. Every character was presented in deep detail. I found this interesting because books I have previously read introduced characters as the story continues rather than portraying them at the beginning. Continuing with the introduction, Marquis de Sade tells readers that the four men enjoy women and men. These libertines are men of power and wealth; however, Sade seems to depict them as giving some power over their pleasure to the men during certain acts. Additionally, these men only looked for children from respectable families. I interpret this reasoning to be because respectable families have power, and there is more satisfaction in overpowering someone who has pride and power than someone from a poor family who has nothing to lose. After this idea is established, Sade describes the code of laws the four men created to keep structure and each other in line. These rules were extremely significant to me because, generally people who consistently allow themselves to have actions that are impulsive, sinful, and lack decorum have no structure and succumb to chaos and disorder. On page 101, Sade calls this text the “most impure tale ever written since the world began.” I find this interesting and important because it could provide a way to interpret the text and Sade’s message contextually. This idea will be further expanded upon in the context blog post about 120 Days of Sodom. At the end of the introduction, Sade provides a list of all the characters with a short description of them. I interpret the inclusion of the list as Sade’s way to establish humanistic and related characters before the story begins.

Part one of the text contains the first thirty days of the 120 days. It establishes rules and details debauchery. On page 330, in part one, Sade mentions himself and claims that “everyone knows the story of the Marquis de…” From my first impression of the novel, I assumed Sade was narrating the story; however, the quotation destroys my line of thinking. This leads me to question who does Sade mean to narrate the story? Does he keep the identity sealed to provide a better feeling of mystery and tension. Additionally, once the four libertines start the children on a diet that will make their poop better to enjoy, they sacrifice the cleanliness of their mouths and the smell of their breath. These men wanted the purest and cleanest children and were very thorough in their original selection. However, they seem to be fine with how dirty and unclean the children become. I find this interesting because Sade describes a big contradiction in the libertines’ line of thinking.

After part one, it feels like the story and the values of the four men fall apart. The story becomes a list with notes rather than a fully written piece of text. From my interpretation, part two contains increasingly harsher and more vulgar actions and stories compared to part one. Part three puts ideas about mutilating people for pleasure inside the four men’s heads. In part four, the libertines seem to stop caring about the fine they pay when they commit restricted acts. Additionally, this part details intense torture and extremely harmful acts both said by the storyteller and performed by the four men. In fact, the men start to kill people. The hardest to read was the removal of Constance’s baby. All the parts of 120 Days of Sodom made me feel uncomfortable and unsafe. I was exposed to acts that I couldn’t ever imagine. I repeatedly had to take breaks and reset my mind.

Throughout the whole novel, Sade omitted details and events for various reasons. The most noteworthy was that there wasn’t a need to recount these descriptions or because the chronological order prevents it. This could be a way for him to build a tense setting or a sense of mystery. Not only does he omit events, but he also censored himself on page 127, “F’s and B’s.” I find this interesting because this piece of text is filled with indecent acts, but in this instance, Sade censors cursing. Sade also breaks the fourth wall by addressing readers and challenging them to imagine what would have occurred. By acknowledging readers, I felt discomfort and a feeling of uneasiness. This is because I have experienced very little of this writing style in a piece of text. In my recreation reading, as a reader, I have been actively called out in a novel once out of the hundreds of books I have read.

Through passages and at the end of every part, there are reflections and notes Sade wrote to himself. This detail is of note to me because I interpret it as a reflection upon his work and himself. In his overall notes to himself, he claims that part one goes too far. I find this interesting because, in my opinion, part one, while disgusting, is the tamest of them all.

Sade uses “we” and “our” when recognizing and conversing with readers. I found this interesting because, to my knowledge, Sade is the only one who wrote this text. Additionally, it led me to question who exactly Sade thinks the readers belong to? Whether it is himself or multiple people? When using pronouns associated with the reader, Sade exclusively using male terminology. I found this strange because, in the modern world, readers are all genders. However, this line of questioning and assumption will be more explored in the context blog post about 120 Days of Sodom.

The four libertines are referred to as heroes during the introduction and part one of the novel. However, on page 41, they are referred to as villains. These descriptions are polar opposites of each other and I’m curious as to why Sade identified them in this conflicting way. Additionally, in part one, Duclos is called a heroine. I noticed that none of the other characters are referred to this way, so I was wondering what made Sade refer to her as such.

Overall, the contents of this book are disgusting and hard to read. While part one got boring after a while, parts two through four created new feelings of shock and repulsion.  

When I first read A Modest Proposal, I read the 1730 edition. This text proved difficult to read, not necessarily because of the content, but because of the way it was written. The style of the lowercase “s” and having no knowledge of the historical context made it difficult for me to determine whether Swift was serious or using satire. However, once I read the modern translation and the historical background surrounding the text, the meaning became clearer. From my interpretation, Swift’s work is a satirical text used to highlight the elite class’s negative and animalistic treatment of the poorer Irish people.

One thing that stood out to me was how much Swift contradicts himself. In the beginning of the text, he talks about how children are a burden, but then suggests his solution would end abortions. This train of thought was confusing to me because, if children are such a burden and poor Irish parents can’t provide for them, wouldn’t Swift propose abortions? But then again, this contradiction may help set up the proposed idea of eating and using children for clothing.

My main takeaway from this text is that Swift is trying to elicit a shocked and disgusted reaction from people. This is because the tone of the work is sensible and serious while suggesting cannibalism. He describes children as something the poor can profit from and boost the economy. Swift also suggests using children for clothing items, similar to what is done with animals. The comparison between children and animal treatment adds to the shock value of this text. Swift wants to create this reaction because it can be related to the time this text was written. By writing this text, Swift exposes how the upper class sees the lower class as something to be used rather than people.

In summary, while A Modest Proposal contains disgusting ideas, the deeper meaning of the text is very interesting. At first, I wasn’t knowledgeable about the conditions in Ireland during this period; however, this work allowed me to do a deep dive into history. While the 1730 edition was difficult to comprehend, it was fascinating to see a writing style from such a long time ago.

The Gospel of Mary is an unfinished work, and the missing pages may be lost forever. These missing pages make it hard to grasp a full understanding of the text and what exactly caused Peter’s change in attitude towards Mary. In the beginning, Peter starting out encouraging Mary to teach to other apostles; however, after the full retelling, Peter’s attitude completely changes. He gets angry, questions Mary, and places doubt upon her story mostly because she is a woman. Since Peter acts drastically differently than he is seen prior to Mary’s retelling, this leads me to question if there was something in the missing pages that specifically angered him.  

Additionally, I found it interesting that in this text, Jesus describes sin as something produced by the human being. In my experience with Christianity, this idea isn’t common. This difference in definition could dramatically change the way sinning commonly is viewed. This is because the gospel seems to state that sin comes from an inner force, while traditionally, it can be stated to come from an external force.

This gospel also offered a new perspective on Mary. Mary is portrayed as a leader and someone knowledgeable. While all the male apostles are weeping and scared after Jesus leaves, Mary is calm. She is also seen as having special favor with Jesus. This idea is different than my original understanding because I was taught that Jesus didn’t have a favorite and that all apostles are equal. Seeing Mary, a woman, in a powerful role also interested me. This is because some stories in the Bible see women as less than men. Having Mary in an assertive and commanding position, along with the reaction of the other apostles to her in said position, demonstrates that respecting women and allowing them to take charge may be uncommon.

Overall, I believe The Gospel of Mary cannot be fully understood without the missing pages. These pages play an important part in the introduction of the story and Mary’s retelling of Jesus’s teachings.

After reading The Gospel of Judas, my major takeaway was how the text contradicted Bible teachings.

One example is the difference in Judas’s character in the text versus what is in the Bible and accepted throughout society. Commonly Judas is known as one of the original disciples who betrayed Jesus for silver. Judas is seen as a traitor and today, his name carries the same negative meaning. This common portrayal of Judas is vastly different than how Judas is displayed in the text. In The Gospel of Judas, he is rendered as a confidant to Jesus. Jesus holds private conversation with Judas which suggests that Judas is the only original disciple that could understand the knowledge being given. It felt like Judas was enlightened by Jesus and his only goal was trying to fulfill what Jesus desired. As I read, I had a hard time wrapping my mind around the Judas who is portrayed as follower of Jesus and the traitor Judas is portrayed to be in Christian teachings.

Additionally, I noticed that the creation of humans in the text also differs from the Bible. In the text, it names many different spiritual beings and claims that Saklas is the creator of Adam and Eve. However, the Bible teaches that God personally created Adam and Eve. In fact, Adam is generally known to be the son of God.

The contradictions created by The Gospel of Judas may be the reason this text is considered “forbidden.” The immense disparities of Judas’s personality and the identified creator of humans could lead to Christians and the church rejecting the gospel and all its content. Moreover, if accepted, this gospel could change the confidence placed into the Christian church. Specifically, the text could challenge the trust put into the Bible since there are many differences between the two. This could lead Christians to doubting their beliefs and teachings.

In conclusion, The Gospel of Judas presents contradictions to Christian beliefs.  Common teachings about Judas’s character, and the creator of Adam and Eve are brought into question. When foundational beliefs are brought into question, believers can experience tension and uneasiness. These feelings can lead to the gospel being cast out and fully rejected.