Author: Hudson Lawrence

When reading the anarchist cookbook, I was initially put off by the somewhat dry opening, where he details the history and politics of anarchism. This was an important read, and served to give context for the rest of the book, but it was a lot duller than I expected going in. After this, though, the book picks up a lot. I managed the read the entire 157 page work (minus a few of the longer technical sections) in a few hours. Aside from the obvious political and social controversies surrounding the book, I found it to be well-written and even funny at times, which impressed me considering the author was the same age I am now while he was writing it.

The first major section, focusing on drugs, is surprisingly responsible in how it advocates for drug use. Powell deliberately warns against things like administering drugs through injection, or using heroin at all. Additionally, he even provides instructions for assisting someone who is undergoing a heroin overdoes, which isn’t at all similar to the “dangerous, militant anarchist” reputation that the book has. Powell includes instructions on how to grow or otherwise produce drugs, and where to obtain them, continuing to advocate for responsible use “Treat drugs with respect, moderation, and common sense” (59). This section does include some longer technical sections, mostly focusing on the laboratory production of certain drugs, but Powell provides layman-friendly instructions when he can.

The next section, which focuses on surveillance and other methods of tracking individuals or groups, is unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on where your beliefs lie) somewhat irrelevant in the wake of flock cameras and other mass surveillance programs. As this was written in the early 1970s, there is obviously no mention of the internet, which has become a larger part of our lives today than telephones or fax machines ever were in the seventies. The section also includes instructions on avoiding or disrupting government surveillance, which is, again, made useless due to modern advancements in technology. The book was written in a pre-PATRIOT act world, and it shows. Things detailed by Powell such as carjacking, which he describes as easy to get away with, would doubtlessly be a lot less reliable in the modern day.

The final main section includes information on building weapons. I think, out of all the content of the book, this is rightly the most controversial. Powell really gets in deep about his revolutionary goals, and provides analysis on why the US doesn’t undergo revolution like some other countries. He posits that it’s citizens are kept just comfortable enough where they don’t want to risk things by revolting, but if situations continue to degrade then revolution is much more likely. He speaks about this hypothetical revolution, calling for the use of “child soldiers” since he believes that they will be better fighters (87). He also speaks at length about things like guns, improvised weapons, and bomb-making, the last section especially likely being why the book is so widely banned today. Surprisingly, unlike most traditionally left-wing thinkers, Powell advocates heavily for the second amendment, saying that is essential for defense from tyranny, though still goes out of his way to state that “a gun is not a toy, a gun is not a plaything” (88).

In closing with this post, I think it is important to discuss the author himself. As said earlier, William Powell was only 19 years old when he first published the Cookbook while in New York, and later went on to greatly regret it, even attempting to get it pulled from publication. However, the publisher, Lyle Stuart (who, interestingly enough, also published The Turner Diaries) refused, and it remains in print today with Powell passing away in 2016. Another contextual aspect is that the book contains a large amount of inaccurate information. In the drug section, it posits that you can get high from smoking banana skins (you cannot), and in the section on bomb-making many of the recipes will result in the mixture blowing up. The book has even been theorized to be a CIA plant to provide inaccurate information to would-be terrorists, but I think this is more likely the work of a dumb 19-year-old forgetting to include crucial information.

While the book does call for violence, sometimes shockingly so, I think it is definitely worth reading. Even outside of the revolutionary context that Powell presents it in, sections like the guide to self-defense are absolutely helpful, even to someone who fully intends on staying inside the bounds of the law. He also discusses how to interact with police officers, putting forward advice like “For god’s sake, do not be a high school or college lawyer and explain to the cop what he can and cannot do. He can do anything, he’s got the gun.” (154) and other tips for protecting and taking full advantage of your rights, which I think is especially relevant in light of recent police brutality events. However, much of the book’s content is a time capsule of the 1970s counter-culture scene, and may not be as relevent today as it once is. I think, despite the author’s best intentions, The Anarchist Cookbook remains available today, for better or for worse.

The bulk of the SCUM manifesto is divided into two main concepts, Solanas’ current disdain and grievances towards men, and her view of an egalitarian, female-only future free from things like money, illness, or death. To present the former, Solanas gives a long list of issues that she believes men are responsible (such as ugliness, boredom, war, and conformity). One of the main issues that she presents is that she believes men are, in fact, “incomplete women” due to the Y chromosome, and thus lacking in things like kindness, empathy, or creativity. Because of this, she states that men attempt to become women by taking on “feminine values”, and projecting “masculine values” like shallowness, commercialism, and vanity onto women to feel superior.

Solanas presents a somewhat irrational view of a man-free future. She states on page 11 that if it were not for men hindering the scientific process, the concept of disease and even death could be eradicated in a mere matter of years. Going further, she later posits that due to people being functionally immortal, there would be no need for sex or reproduction, and humanity could become fully self-sustaining. These lofty ideals are presented in a way where they seem entirely practical, and while there’s no way for anyone to know how society would turn out if all men were eradicated, it seems incredibly aspirational to say that all humankind would achieve immortality just a few years afterward.

Solanas talks at length about her disdain towards those considered “great artists”, saying that most art exists only to uplift men and express female values, again going back to her idea that men want to become women. She believes that men can never be artists because of an inherent lack of creativity, arguing that “A degenerate can only produce degenerate ‘art'”(Solanas 9). When looking at this alongside the historical context of her shooting Warhol, her issues with art and artists seem rather telling.

It should be noted that, despite Solanas’ claim that men are responsible for prejudice in the world, she isn’t above it herself. Solanas frequently uses homophobic slurs in her writing, as well as referring to transgender women as “drag queens”. Despite her own definition of maleness as conceptual rather than entirely physical, she seems convinced that a transgender person cannot fully change their gender, and a transgender women to her is lumped in with the men she is so passionately against.

There is a case for the work to be an example of pure satire, with no real intended threat behind it, but when looking further at the context this is somewhat doubtful. The manifesto does seem to be satirising Freud’s theory of femininity, replacing the concept of “Penis Envy” with “Pussy Envy”. It does also bring to mind A Modest Proposal, with both being texts presenting the hypothetical positive consequences of the elimination of a certain group of society. However, considering that SCUM was an actual movement that Solanas attempted to start and the fact that she shot Andy Warhol (no doubt considered one of the so-called “great artists” she was so fervently against), it’s clear that, at least in part, her ideals were authentic.

On a personal level, while we have read multiple hateful texts in this class, this was the first one explicitly targeted against a group that i’m part of. It’s a little shocking to see this kind of vitriol towards people like me just because of our gender. While Solanas does have several beliefs that I agree with, like being anti-war and not being a huge fan of Andy Warhol, overall this just reads as a series of angry ramblings. Other manifestos i’ve read, like Mein Kampf and Industrial Society and it’s Future at least attempt to seriously analyze society and present solutions, entirely flawed as they may be, but the SCUM Manifesto is content with thinking up hypothetical issues and presenting hypothetical solutions that all rely on one initially sharing Solanas’ worldview. While it may not be an expecially dangerous work, and I don’t think it deserves censorship, I doubt there’s much merit to be gained from it’s analysis.

When watching Triumph of the Will, one of the things that stands out the most is just how grandiose everything is. The movie opens up with an aerial shot, flying through the clouds, and descends until you can see the city of Nuremberg, which almost looks like it’s out of a fairytale. This continues as the movie goes on, with large displays of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, enormous swastikas, and giant eagles that loom over the shots as if the film itself is trying to point the the apparent power of the Nazi movement.

One thing that strongly stood out to me was how disturbingly similar it is to the modern world. In fact, when Hitler first got off the plane at the start of the movie, the enormous crowd of cheering people almost reminded me of the clip of the Beatles first arriving in New York. The people in the film look like normal, friendly people, individuals who I would walk past every day, and that’s because they were. The film shows the more “human” side of the Nazi party, which is where the danger of harmful ideologies like Nazism comes from. Anyone can become entangled in them, and by recognizing the Nazis as humans, it allows us to better identify the causes behind their beliefs, and ultimately prevent anything like the Nazi movement from occurring again.

In fact, the movie takes great strides to try and legitimize the Nazi party as the only reasonable way forward for Germans. A lengthy scene shows Hitler talking to the gathered members of the Hitler youth. This scene, as well as others showing Nazi officials interacting with Nuremburg’s children, appears to be a way to further endear the party in the eyes of the German people.

Interestingly, despite the facade of power projected by Hitler during the rallies, there appear to be cracks forming. Hitler speaks extensively about the SA (more commonly known as the brownshirts), reassuring them that they won’t be dissolved and that they’re an important part of the movement. I was curious about this, and as it turns out that this movie was made shortly after the Night of the Long Knives, where the SA leadership was purged by the SS. In light of this, it makes sense why Hitler seemed so desperate to maintain order; the party was undergoing a serious period of infighting, and Hitler didn’t want the cause losing any momentum.

Overall, Triumph makes great strides to show off Hitler’s vision of the Nazi party, and I think that it does have quite a lot of value from a historical perspective. While it does serve as propaganda, I think that that negative is outweighed by the fact that it lets viewers get a look into the mechanics of how strength and power is projected, and how even the most ordinary-looking people can become swept up into dangerous ideologies.

Distrust of the government is nothing new. In the days of Flock cameras, political division, and mass online surveillance, it’s common for the younger generation especially to feel as if the American government doesn’t exactly have it’ best interests in mind. Occasionally, though, tensions boil over, and a person’s hatred towards the government results in tragedy, such as in the case of the Oklahoma City Bombing.
This bombing, the deadliest domestic terror attack in United States history, was motived by the then-recent incidents that occurred between the ATF and fringe extremists in Waco and Ruby Ridge, as well as racist ideals formed as a result of the perpetrator’s fascination with The Turner Diaries. This paper seeks to examine the motivation behind both this attack and the other incidents that preceded it (such as the Unibomber’s spree in the late seventies and eighties), establishing a pattern of anti-government sentiment resulting in preventable tragedy. This paper will also discuss the factor of literature as a motivator to these attacks, and whether or not it is worthwhile to prioritize national security over full freedom of expression.
I’ve already found a few sources for the paper. The library has a fair few books and journal articles on Waco (including one on the impact of it being televised!) which could definitely be interesting. The same goes for the OKC bombing and Ruby Ridge. Combined with the fact that we’re reading the Unibomber manifesto, I don’t think i’ll have any shortage of sources for my paper.

Image Credit: Medium

I wouldn’t say that I am necessarily desensitized to hatred, but when reading things like Mein Kampf, or Protocols, there’s a degree of seperation, where, while they both lead to mass amounts of violence and cruelty, the reader isn’t necessarily confronted by the real-world effects of the pages they have on hand. That’s why I think it’s so valuble that we wound up visiting the Holocaust Museum, because it served to provide context to the readings we had recently finished, and ground the class discussions in the all-too-real ramifications of unchecked hate.

The Holocaust Museum is an example of purposeful design. When you first enter the permanent exhibit, you are taken there by elevator. You are forced to walk along the path that Germany went down, with no easy way to get back out apart from pushing forward. In doing this, it immerses the museumgoer in the exhibit, making them confront the horrors that happened during the Holocaust. This idea of confrontation is immediate, with the first site you see when exiting the elevator being a pile of the charred corpses of prisoners, found by the allied liberators. Another way this is demonstrated is by making the visitor walk under a casting of the infamous Il macht frei arch, which hung over the gates to Auschwitz. I felt a pit in my stomach when I walked under it, which I imagine was purposeful. Things walking under the arch, through a train car, and through a room full of the shoes taken from Holocaust victims really left a palpable feeling of dread and grief.

Overall, the museum was extremely interesting, and I left it thinking harder about how this class, and why some of the books we dicuss within it were banned. While I still think that all human art and writing has value, it’s a little harder to justify the continued publishing of Protocols and Mein Kampf in light of the obvious consequences of their existence. But, still- the books themselves didn’t commit the genocide. They were merely vessels for human ideas that many already believed in, and still do today, and by focusing efforts on banning them it’s taking away attention from real-world genocides, with countless people being killed daily. Holocaust museum sheds light on the mechanics of hate, and hopefully, we all walk away from it a little more skilled at recognising hate, bigotry, and genocide when it appears.

An Arabic translation of Mein Kampf.

To attempt to contextualize Mein Kampf without mentioning the preceeding events of the First World War, and Hitler’s service during it, would be nothing short of foolish. In fact, Germany as a whole was shaped by the war, with many of the eventual leaders of the Nazi Party serving in the war themselves.

I would wager that fighting in the German army was one of the most formative experiences that led Hitler to develop many of his own nationalistic beliefs, in addition to his interactions with various extremist groups while he worked as an artist in Vienna, and afterwards in response to the poor treatment of Germany in the postwar Treaty of Versailles. The Mannheim introduction states on page 19 that “It is from these days that there developed his passion for uniforms, his aping of the ranks and forms of political organization, his militarism, and his preference for […] the barrack room that were to play so large apart in the subsequent organization of the Nazi Party”. Additionally, Hitler made many connections while in the army that would go on to legitimize his ideas, allowing him to enter politics.

This interest in politics culminated in the failed Beer Hall Putsch, in which Hitler attempted to supplant the Bavarian Government. As a result, Hitler was thrown in prison, during which time he wrote what would eventually become Mein Kampf. Interestingly, he only remained in prison for nine months of his five year sentence, thanks to a sympathetic judge. It almost makes you wonder how history would have gone if Hitler properly faced justice.

The book was a moderate success at first, selling 240,000 copies by the time he became Chancellor in 1933. However, after this, the book became a staple of almost all Nazi households, with special copies being made to be given out at weddings, or small-print versions given to soldiers fighting overseas. By 1939, it had sold 5.2 million copies, in 11 different languages (“Mein Kampf work by Hitler”. Encyclopædia Britannica). By 1945, four different English translations were published, as well as an abridged version published as early as 1933. FDR had a copy of this abridged version in his personal library, and wrote in it that “This translation is so expurgated as to give a wholly false view of what Hitler is and says – the German original would make a different story.”

Interestingly, Hitler himself would later go on to dismiss the book, referring to it as “Fantasies behind bars”, saying that if he knew he would actually become leader of Germany he never would have written it (Hitler’s Private Library: The Books that Shaped his Life. Random House. pp. 92–93). Hitler wasn’t alone in this. Even contemporary sources criticised the book, saying that it was unoriginal, poorly written, and dangerous, all sentiments that show up today. S

I’ll wrap this up by saying that Mein Kampf is interesting to me. Not because I agree with any of the ideas within, far from it, instead because it’s the biproduct of so many years of politics, hardship, hatred, and countless other factors that all worked together to produce one of the most influential movements not just of the 20th centuries, but of human history as a whole. Hitler’s name is synonymous with evil, and this book shows exactly why.

When the Mannheim introduction spoke about how poorly written Mein Kampf was, I was expecting it to be in relation to excessive grammatical mistakes, spelling errors, etc. And maybe those were present, and were simply cleared up by the translators, but one thing they couldn’t fix is the brevity, or lack thereof. My God, Hitler rambles. I barely found myself able to get through the fourth chapter, with the whole thing seeming repetitive and overly wordy, and the fifth wasn’t much better. Any actually interesting details were buried between long passages that didn’t seem to say much at all.

The two chapters I read, four and five, both deal with Hitler’s views on European politics, and the future of the German State. Hitler speaks in chapter four about how alliances are politically necessary to protect the German people, and how important it is for Germany to expend and acquire “living space” for the German people, after which he goes on to list several groups he believes are influencing the German state, and his thoughts on each (notably, the Hapsburgs, Austria, Marxists, and Jews. He is not a fan of any of these). Most notably, he talks at length about Austria, and how it is a decaying state, showing contempt for how he believes it’s dragging down German people, most likely pointing to bitterness as to how Germany got pulled into the war.

I think one of the most interesting aspects of chapter four is Hitler’s views on war, and how Germany would go about seeking allies. Hitler views war as inevitable, due to the fact that in his eyes, the only solution to Germany’s expanding population is to conquer surrounding land, especially by pushing into Russian territory. For this purpose, interestingly enough, Hitler actually thinks of England as the strongest possible ally, while viewing Italy as untrustworthy based on the First World War and its abandonment of the triple alliance. Hitler writes about how the English have a strong population willing to defend themselves and their nation, something that would eventually be proven, though in the opposite way that Hitler intended. He also writes about his admiration for England’s idealism, something that he thinks Germany has lost (for which he blames Jews and Marxists, though this is par for the course for him). I think that this amount of respect given to the English is possibly a way for him to win the favor of any English readers, since he states that an invasion of Russia would need English support to succeed.

The second chapter I had to read, focusing on the First World War, was much more interesting. The chapter mainly focuses on the perceived value of war, with Hitler stating on the first page that he believed he was born in the wrong century, at least before the outbreak of the Great War, because of how peaceful it was. Hitler writes about how without war, Germany was slipping into political and social corruption, becoming a pawn for the Marxists, which in turn are pawns of the Jews. The War, as stated by Hitler, was a time for Germany to cast off the shackles of Marxism and Austrian-Hungarian influence, and restore its own nationalist spirit. The most interesting aspect of the chapter comes from Hitler’s personal narrative, and his own admission that his jingoistic pro-war attitude was gradually worn down as the war progressed and he witnessed the horrors of the trenches. I drew a pretty strong parallel between this and All Quiet on the Western Front, which presents an incredibly similar narrative, though with a much different, anti-Nationalist message. This leaves me to wonder, what is it that separates the conclusions drawn by Hitler and Remarque, when both men had such similar experiences? This look into Hitler as a person, instead of a political thinker, is one of the rare glimpses into where his ideas sprang from and how they went on to shape his policies.

Overall, while the book does include a large amount of historical context and an immensely interesting insight into the mind of one of the most villainous figures of the 20th century, the way that it’s presented is so drawn out that I had a hard time getting through it. Even Mussolini, one of Hitler’s allies, stated that the book was “an incredibly boring tome that I have never been able to finish” (Mussolini: A Biography. New York: Vintage Books. p. 172), and, frankly, I cannot help but agree. I feel as if the only reason the book is so widely banned is because of the author. If Hitler held no position of power, I doubt that the book would ever face censure, since it reads more as a political think piece compared to outright anti-Semitic propaganda like Protocols. If it were not for the influence that Hitler held, and the resulting atrocities committed under him, I suspect that the book would have slipped into obscurity, just one of many nationalist perspectives held in postwar Germany.

I feel like the Boy in the Striped Pajamas somewhat fails in it’s messaging, and as someone who’s studied the holocaust in high school and read about the realities of life during it, it does a poor job of conveying the horrible circumstances and inconceivably cruel treatment of millions of real people in lieu of telling the shockingly sympathetic story of one Nazi family.

Throughout the movie, the family, with the exception of the father, who is in charge of helping run the camp, are depicted as initially unaware of the reality of the holocaust, which is not at all how it was in reality. I think this kind of hopeful optimism about the German public’s apparent lack of knowledge about the Holocaust is damaging, as it leads to people believing that the German people were simply deceived by Hitler, when in reality a vast majority of them supported and Anti-semetic and Ultranationalist thoughts and actions. Even at Bruno’s age, he would have known about Nazi ideals – the Hitler Youth existed for that reason, to try and indoctrinate children and get them to follow along with the party.

The tragedy presented at the end of the movie isn’t the systematic murder of six million Jewish people, but the death of a single fictional German boy. Of course, this never happened, nothing like it did. This movie makes the claim that concentration camps were horrible, not because of the mass murder of Jewish children, but because of the possible death of a single German one. I remember when I first saw this movie, back in middle school, a boy in my class stated that the ending was “so unfair, he was innocent and wasn’t even supposed to be there”, as if all the other children weren’t as well. In reality, Shmuel wouldn’t have even been able to meet Bruno, as in almost every Nazi camp children too young to work were killed as soon as they entered.

While it’s obviously a sanitation of the events for a younger audience, that doesn’t change the flawed messaging, and though I do think that the movie offers a somewhat poignant look at the horrors of the holocaust, I think that anyone viewing it should go into it with at least a basic understanding of the events portrayed, and not base their historical knowledge off of a somewhat mediocre movie. No, the German public were not completely blind to the Holocaust, despite what many may want to believe. No, Jewish children did not run around making friends in Nazi death camps. I feel as if The Boy in the Striped Pajamas simply misses the point when it comes to teaching about the Holocaust. Besides, Maus and JoJo Rabbit are much, much better books/movies about similar subject matter.

A photo of Henry Ford, who was responsible for Protocols’ circulation in the United States

As many modern analyses of Protocols have noted, the work is, somewhat unsurprisingly, fraudulent. While it was purported to have been written by a secret Jewish society bent on world domination, the real origin of the book is that it is a piece of anti-Semitic propaganda, published in the early 20th century in Imperial Russia, and it wasn’t until 1919 when the first English translation was released, shortly before the work was exposed as a hoax. The fraudulent nature of the work, I feel, is one of the most interesting aspects about it. What could compel somebody to write and publish something like this?

I think that to analyze the themes of Protocols, it’s important to look at the conditions in which it was written. When it was first published in the original Russian, Jews made up a very sizable portion of the Russian populace, and due to Orthodox Christianity being the major religion present at the time, people were often distrustful of Jewish people just for being outsiders. Additionally, in an era brimming with Revolutionary sentiment, a text decrying Communists, Anarchists, and Socialists was sure to strike a nerve with more conservative Russian citizens.

Additionally, ntisemitism was already raging in the United States, and Henry Ford, who was referred to by Heinrich Himmler as  “one of our most valuable, important, and witty fighters” and was the only American mentioned favorably in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, was certainly no exception. His publication of Protocols was another step in furthering his antisemetic agenda. On that note, Protocols has the unfortunate distinction of being one of the most far-reaching pieces of anti-Semetic literature, being distributed among Germans by the Nazi Party, which no doubt contributed to the anti-Semitism already brewing among Germans at the time.
As previously mentioned, Protocols was debunked, with it’s existence as a forgery being proved by the Philip Graves and Allen Dulles, (The latter, interestingly enough, going on to be the first director of the CIA), in a series of articles published in the British newspaper, The Times.

Today, one of the few remaining copies of Protocols remains in the United States Holocaust museum, where it is displayed along with many other examples of anti-Semitic propaganda. Protocols has gone on to inspire various groups, with it being frequently cited throughout Neo-Nazi organizations, despite it being proven to be fraudulent. While the book itself may be a forgery, the ideas that it holds within are sadly still spreading throughout the world.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is, sadly, hardly anything that I haven’t seen before. Unfortunately, throughout the world’s history the Jewish people have been target to countless attempts to defame and villainize them, and this book is unsurprisingly no different. The work is presented as a text stolen from a meeting of the so-called Elders of Zion, an alleged group of Jewish leaders, and documents how they control the world and plan on subjugating humanity to their whims. The book is said to be 100% factual, and it is clear that the information presented, detailing how the Jews want to achieve total world domination and how any non-Jews will be ruled cruelly over, is intended to spread Anti-Semitism, and provoke non-Jewish readers into distrusting and even hating them.

I think one of the things that surprised me the most about reading Protocols is how it echos many modern-day conspiracies, those focusing on a shadowy “world elite” pulling the world’s strings from the shadows, e.g., the concept of an Illuminati-type organization that controls world leaders and influences politics. I’m willing to bet that this text is where that concept came from, considering just how similar the theory put forward by Protocols and these newer conspiracy theories are. The book also echos many anti-Semitic tropes, like the Jewish people looking down on Gentiles, and controlling things like the economy, the media, politics, the judicial system, etc. There is also a brief mention on how these elders want to make use of things like subways to “bomb every city”, so there’s an aspect of immediate danger likely intended to rile up the audience.

This is getting more into the context side of things, but the book also makes mention of how communists and socialists are apparently puppets of this Jewish organization, a writing choice that was no doubt influenced by the pre-revolution climate of Imperial Russia (and why staunchly capitalist Henry Ford may have chosen this specific anti-Semitic text to spread), as well as the large Jewish population present in Russia at the time. I find it interesting that there’s a possible motive for writing beyond sheer anti-semitism, as because throughout history Jewish people have been persecuted and blamed for countless things, by attaching socialists/communists to them the original authors may be trying to discredit those groups and their messaging.

I think, unlike the other readings presented in this class, this work truly has very little, if any, meaning or value. Even 120 days, gratuitous as it is, attempts to comment on the nature of human sexuality. Protocols, however, exists only as a piece of antisemitic propaganda, and doesn’t make any attempt at literary insight outside of “The Jews control all the world governments and are plotting to dismantle democracy”. It has been shown to lead directly to dangerous and hateful thoughts and actions and, despite my interest in banned or controversial books, I feel like this one is better left forgotten.

As stated in my first post, much of the content in 120 Days is a mirror to De Sade’s own life and proclivities. He was arrested numerous times as a result of his actions, for crimes such as sodomy, blasphemy, torture, and others. He often abused both prostitutes he hired and his own servants, who he forced to acts that endangered their health. De Sade was by no means a good man, and the philosophical approach he takes in depicting the actions of his characters is somewhat dulled by how strong of a resemblance they pay to his own life.

In addition to musing on the concept of freedom (the Libertine movement being dedicated to exploring that very concept), 120 days, if only accidentally, comments on the corruption of power. All four of the protagonists are incredibly wealthy and influential people- a duke, judge, bishop, and banker, and the fact that they are able to commit their monstrous actions is due to their influence and connections. As stated before, it’s easy to draw connections between them and individuals like Jefferey Epstein, Prince Andrew, and others, who used their broad reach as a way to gain access to and abuse children. However, the rich men depicted in 120 days don’t choose just anyone for their targets; they prey upon the children of wealthy or noble families, echoing the sentiment held by many frenchmen at the time that the nobility is corrupt, and that it’s existence is poisonous to France. I think that if it were not for his own noble background, De Sade would have made a very compelling revolutionary figure.

A major aspect of the book I didn’t touch on in my first post was the religious angle. While the book condemns the church, with stories of sexually abusive priests being frequent, as well as one of the four protagonists being a bishop, the book does acknowledge the power of faith, as the victims are prevented from praying to break their spirits, and one of the four daughters, who secretly practices christianity, is shown in a positive light. I think that this distrust of organized religion may not be exclusively a modern concept. The Catholic Church at the time was immensely powerful, and with its close ties to the monarchy it may have been seen as the kind of authority that De Sade wanted to push against.

A large part of the book’s story came from its near destruction. After the storming of the Bastille, De Sade himself assumed the manuscript was destroyed, though it happened to be kept by one of the looters, who passed it down through generations until it resurfaced again in the early 20th century, when the first editions were published. I think it’s interesting that originally, the book wasn’t even attempted to be portrayed as real literature, but was apparently instead a manual or guide to sexual deviancies. In fact, the book was banned overall in multiple countries, including the United States, up until the 1960s, and it was only a few years after that ban ended that the first publicly-available English translation was released. I think it’s impressive just how this book was written in the first place, within a span of 37 days, on smuggled-in scraps of paper. For better or for worse, it is only by a stroke of massive luck that this book survives uncensored to read in the modern day.

A large part of the controversy surrounding the Marquis de Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom comes from whether or not it has any value as a piece of art, and whether it serves as commentary toward’s society’s view of taboo topics or if it’s simply depravity for the sake of depravity. I think, based on the context of De Sade’s life before writing this, it leans a bit more into the second category, with De Sade’s desire to put it forward as a legitimate intellectual work only being a way to try and validate his desires.

In the book itself, De Sade presents an argument that the contents of the book have a profound artistic and moral value. However, when looking at De Sade’s personal life, it’s obvious that he relates somewhat to the characters he writes about. In his lifetime, De Sade found himself embroiled in numerous scandals, with one, the so-called “little girls affair” (in which De Sade abused seven newly-hired servants, all around the age of fifteen, at one of his remote properties) seeming all-too-familiar to the kind of events portrayed in 120 Days. The book as a whole seems to be a kind of wish fulfillment, as while the characters are described as “monstrous”, they are written in such a way to seem like they are almost intended to be relatable to the reader, with the narration itself describing their actions as if they’re aspirational, with whole paragraphs dedicated to discussing the nobility of these libertine ideas, and how the four main characters are “free thinkers”, lending them a sort of philosophical, scholarly quality that comes into serious contrast when put besides their carnal portrayals.

The book also seems to make an effort towards social commentary, with the four protagonists coming from high-class backgrounds (a judge, a banker, a nobleman, and a priest). In fact, the book opens by stating that these crimes being committed by those in high society is meant to be shocking, a fact that is sadly no longer true in light of similar, real-life figures like Jeffery Epstein, Prince Andrew, and others looming large in the public consciousness. The passage also reads as incredibly hypocritical, considering the proclivities of De Sade himself.

I think I would be remiss if I didn’t mention how the book made me feel, since the visceral negative reaction I had upon reading it is no doubt one shared by many. Despite this, though, it was interesting seeing just how far the book would go, coming up with concepts and scenarios I wouldn’t even imagine. To be honest, that’s where I think the value in this class comes from, since I am given the chance to read something I more than likely wouldn’t touch within my lifetime. De Sade spares no amount of graphic detail when it comes to describing the scenes within. Despite this, though, the book becomes somewhat repetitive after the first hundred-odd pages, and despite the awful descriptions I almost began to feel desensitized to the perverse nature of the book. I think that after reading this, it’ll be hard to imagine any other kind of book that could shock me to such an extent as this one did.

Overall, it isn’t hard to figure out why the book was banned. Between its obscenity, the fact that it was never published, and its unfinished state, it’s a miracle that we’re reading it today. And, honestly, I’m glad we are. Despite the disgusting ideas contained within it, I think it’s important, for the sake of free speech, that even things I personally find reprehensible to be available to read and discuss, just for the sake of ensuring that ideas aren’t being censored for the reason of obscenity. Just because society as a whole views a work to be disgusting, evil, etc, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have value, regardless of it’s original intentions.

While I certainly don’t know much about 18th-century Irish Politics, the issues of poverty and the poor treatment of those less fortunate are still issues present in today’s society, and for that I think A Modest Proposal remains relevant and an important work for those wanting to go into public service and other fields that involve working towards a “public good”.

What stood out to me the most was just how straightforwards the writing seemed. Swift writes about the mass-murder and cannibalism of children as if it’s a completely reasonable idea, and not something completely shocking. While I did know about the subject matter going into it, I was surprised at how long Swift took to actually name his solution, something that I imagine was to get readers interested so they don’t immediately put the text down. It’s spoken very matter-of-factly, too, as if a large amount of thought was put into an idea that would never actually be implemented, including the speaker claiming to have tried human flesh himself, and laying out all the uses for this proposed system of baby-eating.

One aspect I personally find interesting is towards the end, Swift lists a number of actual solutions to economic imbalance, such as ending reliance on foreign goods, taxing absent landlords, ending factionalism, etc., while also telling readers not to mention them unless they are willing to attempt their implementation. I think that this is where the real satire of A Modest Proposal shines through, in that by discounting these actual answers in favor of the outlandish baby-eating scheme, he highlights them. If people aren’t willing to try something as simple as taxing landlords, why should a proposal like Swift’s make any difference?

The reason that this work was suppressed, I feel, is that it goes against the societal neglect levied against poorer Irish residents, and by calling it out, it may have made some upper-class readers feel attacked. While the content itself is shocking, the most important part of A Modest Proposal isn’t the ideas themself, but rather how it holds a mirror to the way poor people were treated. Reducing those without means to a resource to be consumed is the logical endpoint of ideas like indentured servitude, where those desperate to survive essentially sold themselves in the hopes that it would eventually lead to a way out of poverty. Swift points out how the wealthy elite see those struggling as a resource to be managed instead of as people, and indirectly makes it clear that processing those in need for food is not entirely different from how they are actually treated.

Overall, I actually found the text pretty enjoyable, despite the dark subject matter. I don’t usually read things from this era, and it was an interesting challenge dealing with the flowery language, the old lowercase S, and other such quirks of 1700s writing. I was able to pick up on the satire on my first read, too, which added to the work in my opinion. It still remains shocking, despite how long ago it was written, and I think it’s an important work considering the subject matter and how it’s still relevant to discussions over how to handle the rising wealth gap and increasing rate of homelessness in the US.

The name Judas has been used since the early days of Christianity as a stand-in for words like betrayer, traitor, turncoat, all tracing back to Judas’s fateful betrayal of Christ in exchange for thirty pieces of silver. While the Gospel of Judas doesn’t refute this event, it does offers up a more empathetic portrayal of its much-maligned namesake.

Despite Judas often being portrayed as scheming or underhanded, this gospel actually shows Judas to be a person that Jesus can speak privately with, trusting him with information that he otherwise keeps from his disciples. In fact, Judas is portrayed as the calmest and most rational out of all of them, being the only one able to understand and trust Jesus near the beginning of the text. As a whole, his character differs so greatly from the traditional portrayal that it’s difficult to conceptualize them as the same individual.

One of the most stark features of this text is how it goes against traditional christian teachings regarding the nature of the world and the spiritual powers at play. The Gospel states that it was not, in fact, God himself who created Adam and Eve, but rather by an angel named Saklas, who along with his fellow angels were responsible for the creation of mankind. The text also speaks a great deal about different generations of humans, and how some are unable to truly understand God. There is a large significance given to numbers in Jesus’s recounting, which could point to numerology, another practice not used often in Christian teachings.

In all, The Gospel of Judas offers an alternative, more esoteric view on humanity’s origins, as well as portraying Judas in a far more positive light than usual, both of which could be reasons for it’s controversy. It’s interesting to note the similarities between this and The Gospel of Mary Magdelyn, both featuring a disciple who is often misunderstood or depicted poorly, and both featuring them being privy to a private lesson by Jesus, which they can understand to a greater extent than the other disciples. I’m not sure if it’s a coincidence or not, but there are certainly connections to be made.

While the Gospel of Mary Magdelyn no doubt contains some amount of religious significance, recounting a (mostly lost) revelation given by Jesus following his resurrection, the most striking aspect of the Gospel itself is not the preaching itself but rather Mary’s role as a leader and the other apostles’ harsh reaction to her teaching.
Contrary to most bigoted perceptions of a woman’s societal role, especially those held when this work was first written, it is Mary, the sole woman, who remains calm while the male apostles are portrayed as frightened and confused following Jesus’s departure. She takes command of the situation, comforting the men, and recounts a teaching that she alone had received from Jesus. Upon hearing this, two of the men, Peter and Andrew, immediately dismiss her, casting her retelling into doubt. I find it interesting how even those portrayed as closely following Jesus’s teachings were portrayed in this text as distrustful, even jealous, accusing Mary of lying for recounting a teaching and dismissing her words as “strange”.
The text portrays Mary as a leader, someone who Jesus Himself showed favoritism towards, as well as someone who, even when faced with a challenging situation like the departure of Jesus, was able to organize the men and comfort them. This situation is unlike many seen in the bible. While some women were revered (another Mary, Jesus’s mother, comes to mind), a woman actually being portrayed as competent and leading men was rare, with the bible even stating that women should remain subservient to men (Ephesians 5:22).
The text serves as a rare legitimization of women in power during biblical times. While the text itself faded into obscurity, after its reemergence it was treated as noncanonical by most religious authorities. I think that part of the reason for this decision (apart from the recency of its emergence) is that it goes against the common conception of women in the bible, and Mary’s character in general. While in canonical texts, Jesus treated her well and loved her like all the other disciples, this was treated as an exception, and that respecting a woman was something groundbreaking to society at the time. This text shows Mary to be a powerful leader in her own right, able to preach and control a crowd, while the men are treated as ignorant and distrustful, contrary to the patriarchal religious authority in place both at the time of writing and still today.

Hey, all viewing! I’ve never gotten around to making a blog before, but it seemed like one of those neat little internet-y things that I wanted to try someday, so I’m glad that this class is giving me an excuse to do so. This blog, as implied by the title, is going to be going over the various readings and viewings for my FSEM, centered on Forbidden Texts. I’ve always had an interest in more controversial literature, especially those banned on account of their subject matter, so this class is right up my alley. The first two things I’ll be reading/writing about are the gospels of Judas and Mary Magdelyn (or is it Magdala?), which should be published shortly after I write this little blog intro.