Author: Isabella

Hatred, in one way or another, has been the foundation for many of the books we have read this semester. The Turner Diaries is rooted in pure hatred and resentment, and it is made clear from the very first page of the book. Before taking this class, I had never heard of The Turner Diaries. Although the book, its author, and their history have truly sickened me, I am glad that I was exposed to a dark history that continues to live on as a dark reality for people today. It has opened my eyes to a history and a reprehensible legacy that still exists today, but is unfortunately often overlooked by society. 

Described by the FBI as “the bible of the racist right,” The Turner Diaries is a dystopian novel set in the 1990s.. It was written by William Pierce, who published the book under the pseudonym Andrew Macdonald. The book follows Earl Turner and his allies’ revolution against “The System”, a dystopian government controlled by minorities that was oppressing White Americans. More specifically, this government enacted the Cohen Act that outlawed the private possession of firearms, going against the Second Amendment. Since the Cohen Act was enacted, the System persecuted White Americans, especially those who still had firearms in their possession. In retaliation, Turner works with“The Organization,” a revolutionary group meant to fight back against the evil System. Over time, he is recognized by “The Order,” a secret elite group in the Organization that was the true group behind the revolution against the System, and he is selected to join them. The book is written as Turner’s diary over two years, from the creation of his Organization to his final revolutionary act that made him a “hero” in the eyes of white supremacists. 

 The writing itself got straight to the point, and it was easy to tell that it was written by a white supremacist right off the bat. Pierce immediately expresses his hatred in the first pages of Chapter One. In Chapter One, Turner is visited by four black officers who are looking for potential firearms. They treat him aggressively, but Turner first believes that they are “robbers.” From this moment on, Pierce paints Black people as an evil enemy who is oppressing White Americans and violating their rights. There was another slight detail that was so jarring to read, but it further clarified how much even the look of darker skin really infuriated Pierce, even when it concerned White people with a darker complexion. In Chapter One, Turner describes another “caucasian” officer, who was also a traitor, but for some reason Pierce added the fact that he was of darker complexion. That detail added nothing to the story itself, but it was proof that Pierce was painting a picture in which any darker complexion was seen as the enemy, even if it was someone who was white. After reading this, I had a hard time processing just how much hatred Pierce had, especially how he made it clear so early in the book.

Throughout the book, Turner and his allies use violence in a wide variety of ways to revolt against the system. In one instance, the Organization bombed the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., killing around 700 people. Turner admits that although he feels some remorse for killing innocent people, he believes they cannot be freed from the system without violence. By the end of the book, Turner has led many acts of revolution, but he realizes he has to complete one last mission. He accepts a suicide mission, where he must fly a plane and drop a nuclear bomb over the Pentagon, or, as Turner described it, a “one-way trip” to the Pentagon. He did not seem very anguished by his decision to assume responsibility for this mission, and he ends his last journal entry with an overall sense of acceptance of his fate. His journal ends there, and the book finishes with an epilogue that is narrated from a future perspective from the 21st century. 

The epilogue discusses how the Organization gained more power and persevered despite hardship. This epilogue truly shines a light on Pierce’s true desire for his ideal world. In the epilogue, the narrator describes how food scarcity was a huge obstacle for the Organization. As seen throughout the book, Pierce adds small details to belittle and vilify Black people. In this section, Pierce writes that while White people starved, Black people resorted to cannibalism, which is a clear detail written to further insult Black people. He also adds that all white men who wanted to be a permanent part of the organization needed to bring proof that they had killed any non-white person. By the end of the epilogue, the Organization spread around the world, and the book ends with the murder of all non-white people in a multitude of horrific ways. The book ends saying “the Order would spread its wise and benevolent rule over the earth for all time to come.” 

Put frankly, this book is just William Pierce and his followers’ fantasy of what they want the world to look like, framed through the lens of their version of the perfect person, a white man who becomes a hero and saves White people from the enemy, anyone who is not white. William Pierce was the leader of the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group originating in West Virginia. Pierce was also the founder of the Cosmotheist Church, which was a “Christian identity group” that aligned with Pierce’s white supremacist principles, with one of the main teachings being that White people were the chosen people of the Bible, but Jews and Black people were the children of the devil. The National Alliance owned National Vanguard Books, which promotes antisemitic and racist books like Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries. Pierce published The Turner Diaries in 1978, but he also wrote another book called Hunter, which follows the story of a serial killer who murders interracial couples and Jews to “cleanse” America. This book has inspired many acts of terrorism and violence, including the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995, which was carried out by Timothy McVeigh, who was inspired by one of the bombs in the book. I have had a hard time finding my words to describe how I feel about this book and its history. It is detestable and sickening. This book sheds light on how far hatred can blind people and lead them down a horribly dark path. Although many have painted these beliefs and actions as mistakes of the past, the reality is that this hatred still exists today, and it is more evident than ever. 

Sources

Egan, Nancy. 2025. “The Turner Diaries | Summary & Facts.” Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Turner-Diaries.

Although I had heard about Ted Kaczynski in passing before, I never truly paid much attention to his story. Now that I have learned more about his story and the complexities behind his violent actions, I have realized that this story is a lot more than what I believed before. Ted Kaczynski’s manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future, offered a glimpse into the mind of a man who was completely dissatisfied with the new status quo that the Industrial Revolution had brought to society. It expresses his frustrations in seeing the rest of society zoom past him at a dangerous pace with new technology and ideas, in his eyes, taking away the people’s freedom and happiness in the process. 

Ted Kaczynski was born in 1942 in Chicago, Illinois. He was said to be an incredibly bright and talented student, so intelligent that he skipped two grades while he was in school. At 16, he went to Harvard to study mathematics, and he ended up getting a PhD in math at the University of Michigan. Kaczynski was very serious about his intelligence and was very proud of his accomplishments. He later started teaching math at UC Berkeley, but he quit just two years later, and he never worked in a full-time position since then. It was so interesting to see how successful he was in school and how far his intelligence took him in his career before he decided to leave that life behind.  

Years later, he was living, as described by the FBI, “like a recluse” in a small cabin in the mountains of Montana. I strongly believe that his new life secluded in the mountains was one of the strongest influences on his beliefs. Alone on a mountain, Kaczynski found everything he needed to survive on his own without the need for modern technology, so it was clear that he saw modern technology as overly excessive and detrimental. Kaczynski started his attacks in 1978, and they continued for the next 17 years. Kaczynski handmade his bombs, and he mailed them or personally delivered them to his targets. In the end, he had killed three people and injured 23 others. His first target was Buckley Crist, who was a professor of engineering at Northwestern University. He disguised the bomb as a package which had Crist as its return address, and left it in his office’s parking lot. He alerted security since he did not send it, and the bomb exploded when the security guard opened the package. The attack that led the FBI to start a case on these bombings occurred in 1980, when Kaczynski sent a bomb to the president of United Airlines. After this attack, the FBI opened the “UNABOMB” case, which stood for “university and airline bombing.” 

By 1985, Kaczynski had killed Hugh Scrutton, the owner of a computer rental store in Sacramento, California. In 1987, a woman spotted Kaczynski planting a bomb outside a computer store, which led the FBI to create a composite sketch of Kaczynski based on what the woman saw, but it was not the most helpful since he had a hood and sunglasses. Kaczynski ended up taking a six-year break until 1993, when he began his attacks again. By 1995, he had killed two other people: an advertising executive, Thomas Mosser, and Gilbert Murray, the president of the California Forestry Association. As his case grew in fame, Kaczynski decided that he wanted to publicize his reasons for committing his crimes through his manifesto Industrial Society and Its Future. He sent his manifesto to the Washington Post and The New York Times, and they published his manifesto for the world to learn his side of the story. 

In his manifesto, Kaczynski argued that the Industrial Revolution was a disaster for the human race for many reasons, including the fact that it “destabilized” society and that it made life “ unfulfilling.” The belief that the Industrial Revolution posed potential threats to human society was not uncommon among political theorists and thinkers. My Political Science class has discussed the Industrial Revolution in great detail, and it has allowed me to understand how much of an impact it truly had. It completely changed society in every way, from the way people were living, moving from rural areas to cities, to the way people’s ideas were changing politically. Political ideologies like liberalism were reintroduced into society, and other ideologies like socialism gained popularity as a response to the harsh conditions of the Industrial Revolution. Kaczynski’s critique of modern technology was more common than people thought. Political thinkers like Henry David Thoreau criticized modern technology, with many like Karl Marx, who believed in the labor theory of value, saying that modern industrial technology and techniques like mass production were a threat to humanity. 

Kaczynski claimed that his objective was not to overthrow the government, but the economic and technological systems in society. One of the most notable parts of his manifesto was his distaste for the “leftists.” He spends a good chunk of his manifesto arguing against the leftists. One notable argument was his disagreement with “political correctness” and how those who really cared about being politically correct were not actually a part of the minority themselves. This opened up into the issue of oversocialization, where people were forced to feel guilt for doing things that were against society’s expectations. This was a very interesting point because it is an argument still seen today, where many argue that society’s idea of morality has put too much pressure and expectations on people, limiting their freedom. For a final note, it was clear that Kaczynski was an anarchist because he claimed that revolution was “easier than reform,” showing that he was dissatisfied with the status quo that society had adopted, and he believed it needed to be completely destroyed and rewritten.

His brother, David, read his manifesto and suspected that it was Kaczynski who wrote it, so he contacted the FBI. Kaczynski was arrested in 1996 by the FBI in his cabin. During his trial, he tried to fire his defense attorneys over a disagreement on his defense. His attorneys wanted to defend his case by arguing that he was not guilty on the grounds of insanity. Kaczynski, who had been considered a genius for most of his life, did not agree with their plan because it would paint him in a worse light, so he wanted to defend his case on political grounds, saying his bombings were necessary for his revolution against modern technology. He ended up making a deal with the prosecution to plead guilty and avoid the death penalty, serving life instead. In 2023, Kaczynski ended his life in prison.

Kaczynski’s manifesto sheds light on his beliefs and arguments against modern technology. Some of his arguments seem logical, even if the reader does not agree with them, which differs from the other readings we have read so far. However, I do not believe that they defend his actions at all. The violent path he took did nothing for his argument, but it ruined and ended the lives of many victims. Sure, his bombs made headlines, which gave more attention to his argument, but in the end, it did nothing to stop modern technology or even reform it. In fact, technology has only grown faster since, and it shows no signs of slowing down. 

References

Hewitt, Steve. 2023. “Theodore Kaczynski | Research Starters.” EBSCO. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/political-science/theodore-kaczynski.

Peil, Michael. 1997. “UNABOM history.” Law.Cornell.Edu. https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/unabom/history.html.

Perez, Kate. 2023. “Who was the ‘Unabomber’? A look back at Ted Kaczynski, who killed three and died in prison.” USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/06/10/who-was-unabomber-ted-kaczynski-dead/70309339007/#:~:text=He%20first%20target%20was%20Buckley,guard%20received%20a%20hand%20injury.

“Unabomber — FBI.” n.d. FBI. Accessed November 16, 2025. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/unabomber.

Before I even began to read over The Anarchist Cookbook, I took a moment to read over the table of contents. At first, I simply glanced at it and was getting ready to move on, but I immediately had to make a double-take. Simply reading the insane (and seemingly endless) list in the table of contents was the perfect introduction to what this book has to offer. Chapter One: “Drugs”, Chapter Two: “Electronics, Sabotage, and Surveillance”, Chapter Three: “Natural, Nonlethal, and Lethal Weapons”, and Chapter Four: “Explosives and Booby Traps”, each of these chapters was its own can of worms all on its own. Surprisingly, the FBI said that The Anarchist Cookbook did not cause “forcible resistance to any law of the United States”, so it was protected by the First Amendment. It also could not be regulated since it was released as mass media. Regardless, reading this book felt wrong, especially when you find yourself reading a DIY tutorial on “how to make DMT in the kitchen.”

William Powell wrote The Anarchist Cookbook when he was 19 years old. Whether or not that is shocking is debatable. It was published in 1971 by Lyle Stuart Inc., a publisher notorious for publishing such inflammatory texts. Powell wrote this rebellious handbook as a protest against the government and the Vietnam War, which ended 4 years after the publication of his book. Although Powell did not speak much about his book after it was published, he was able to express his opinion and reflection decades later. In the documentary American Anarchist, filmmaker Charlie Siskel was able to interview Powell right before his death in 2016. In that documentary, Powell revealed his regret of writing the book in the first place, and he revealed that he had not read the book since he first wrote it. He hoped it would eventually go out of print. Furthermore, he was haunted by the fact that his book inspired multiple acts of terrorism. His book was notably linked to a plane hijacking, amongst other things, and the Columbine school shooting and attempted bombing. 

Powell begins the book with a compelling foreword, directly addressing the “real people of America.” He claimed that the book was not an act of revolution on its own, but it was meant to be a tool to “stir some stagnant brains into action.” He essentially calls for violence to rebel against the government, because “…people in power…will not non-violently give up that power to the people.” And as promised, The Anarchist Cookbook acted as that handbook for violence and rebellions in all forms. From explosives to drugs to silencers, this book has everything an anarchist needs to know if they want to take violent action. 

Coincidentally, we have recently discussed anarchism in my Political Science class, and it was very interesting to note the clear connections with that class and this reading. For example, we discussed how anarchists do not follow the law because they do not believe in its effectiveness and believe it is suppressing the people. Many anarchists, unlike those on the rest of the political spectrum, believe that imprisonment is, in fact, an honor, not a punishment, because they are going against the very institutions they despise. This can be clearly seen in Powell’s introduction, where he writes that he would not have written this book if he were not going to be thrown in jail for writing it. Anarchism is a very complicated ideology that is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. It can be seen on either side of the ideological spectrum, and it can be expressed in many ways. Clearly, Powell’s interpretation is the most popular version of anarchism. His focus on violence grabs attention and incites reactions from people around the world. 

19-year-old William Powell believed anger and frustration needed to be expressed through action, but not just any action; it had to be violent action. He believed people needed to take violent action to get the change they wanted. As a true anarchist, he believed no law was worth following except for the laws “he instills in himself.” Now, decades later, his book was arguably successful in getting people to take action, acting as an influence on multiple acts of terrorism. 

References

“Books as Contraband: The Strange Case of ‘The Anarchist Cookbook.’” 2018. War on the Rocks. https://warontherocks.com/2018/09/books-as-contraband-the-strange-case-of-the-anarchist-cookbook/.

McEvers, Kelly. 2017. “Documentarian Says ‘Anarchist Cookbook’ Author Was Filled With Remorse.” NPR. https://www.npr.org/2017/04/03/522474967/documentarian-says-anarchist-cookbook-author-was-filled-with-remorse.

How does one come to loathe men with such burning hatred? What awful experiences lead someone to abhor men to this extent? Granted, I am not the most well-versed in the feminist movement this has been the most extreme feminist ideology that I have seen. Even though it is categorized as “radical” feminism, it still goes far beyond the basic views of radical feminism. Its call for violence completely overshadows and takes away from the main goal of feminism, which brings up the argument of whether the SCUM Manifesto is even feminist in the first place.   

After learning more about author Valerie Solanas’ life, the SCUM Manifesto seems to be more of an exasperated manifestation of a tormented woman’s frustrations with the world around her than an actual call to action. The SCUM Manifesto sheds light on the plagued mind of a woman who has lived an incredibly difficult and challenging life, and how her torment led to extreme ideas for the issues around her. Ever since her childhood, Solanas lived a traumatic and challenging life that unfortunately led to a troubled future with dangerous consequences for herself and even those around her. 

Valerie Solanas was born in 1936 to a troubled family. She was a child of divorce and was sexually assaulted by her own father when she was a child. This troubled childhood bled into her life in the future, affecting her academics and future relationships. She was expelled from her Academy for hitting a nun, and she was known to shoplift. While studying at the University of Maryland, she was expelled from her dormitory for throwing bottles down a flight of stairs. After this, Solanas was forced to rely on prostitution to pay for her education and her apartment. She later began a master’s degree program in psychology, but she eventually dropped out and had to rely on prostitution once more to pay her rent. Later in life, she met artist Andy Warhol and became associated with him and his “Factory,” which was essentially his studio. She hoped that his fame would eventually help her gain her own fame, but unfortunately, their connection led to dangerous consequences. 

In June of 1968, Solanas planned on shooting Maurice Girodias, the man who helped publish some of her work, because she believed he tricked her into signing away her rights to her work. He was out of town when she decided she would shoot him, so she ended up going to Andy Warhol’s Factory instead. She believed he was going to steal her work for himself. Earlier, she wrote a play that she wanted Warhol to produce, but he refused to produce the play, and he misplaced her play in the process. Solanas was convinced he was going to steal her work, so she shot him and an art curator who was present at the scene. Solanas turned herself in and was determined incompetent to stand trial, and was eventually found to have paranoid schizophrenia. She was imprisoned for 3 years and lived a portion of her final years homeless. She died of bronchopneumonia in 1988.

Pieces of Solanas’s life are scattered throughout the SCUM Manifesto. One of the aspects of Solanas’s life that is most clearly evident is her violent nature, which is consistently present throughout the SCUM Manifesto. Even though she wrote the manifesto before shooting Warhol, it is clear how she relied on violence to solve her problems. In the manifesto, she argues that the “SCUM” will be a group that will fix society’s problems, including killing men, with the exception of the “Men’s Auxiliary of SCUM”, to best answer to improve society and the lives of women. Her reliance on violence, both through her writing and her actions, was just one of the signs of Solanas’ internal battles. Another notable connection to her childhood in her manifesto was her description of father figures. On page 3, she writes that “Mother wants what’s best for her kids; Daddy only wants to do what’s best for Daddy…” and even more alarmingly, “His daughter…he wants sexually…” This is a clear connection to her childhood trauma, specifically to her trauma from her father sexually assaulting her.

After learning more about her own personal life, it is incredibly important to know her background before reading the SCUM Manifesto. Her traumatic life experiences and her own mental battles led her to write something so violent and hostile, so it is important to consider that when assessing her ideas in her manifesto. Her claims are not meant to be a call to action or an answer to society’s problems; they are meant to represent the extremes one turns to when one is truly struggling. Her own life experiences are not an excuse for the violence and hate she is calling for, but they are evidence that show that this manifesto is simply a look into the mind of a tormented individual whose instability led to extremely dangerous ideas to attempt to solve the problems around her. At its core, the SCUM Manifesto reflects Solanas’ personal torment stemming from her life’s traumas, with feminism serving merely as a facade for her true feelings, regardless of her awareness of it.

References

Gamber, Francesca. n.d. “Valerie Solanas | Research Starters.” EBSCO. Accessed October 15, 2025. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/valerie-solanas.

Guy, Olivia. 2024. “Radical Feminism: Definition, Theory & Examples.” Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/radical-feminism.html.

Pruitt, Sarah. 2018. “Andy Warhol Was Shot By Valerie Solanas. It Killed Him 19 Years Later.” History.com. https://www.history.com/articles/andy-warhol-shot-valerie-solanas-the-factory.

Nowadays, there always seems to be a new shocking news headline, which is then followed by a more shocking story the following day. With the new presidential administration making many controversial and shocking decisions in its first year, news agencies have had a fairly busy year reporting many of these stories and decisions. However, recently, news agencies have been facing a surprising amount of opposition from the current administration for some of the news that they have been releasing. Since the start of Donald Trump’s second presidency at the beginning of this year, it has been abundantly clear that the freedom of the press has faced many concerning threats from this new administration. From the cuts in public broadcasting networks like NPR to the Associated Press (AP) being removed from the White House press pool, this administration has cracked down on news agencies that have defied the administration’s expectations. Many have argued that this administration has repeatedly violated the freedom of the press, with some, including AP News, suing the administration for infringing on their rights. 

This paper aims to discuss and answer the following questions: Has the second Trump administration violated the freedom of the press, and if so, how have these rights been violated since the start of this presidency? What legal loopholes and tactics has this administration used to avoid legal trouble with agencies like the Associated Press? What news agencies have been targeted, and why have they been targeted? Do any of these agencies have any commonalities with each other? What role do social media platforms have, and how does the right to the freedom of the press apply to them?  This paper will draw some comparisons and points from the first Trump administration, but it will mainly focus on his second term (so far). Some of the potential sources that will be used for this paper include court records from lawsuits against the Trump administration, like Associated Press v. Budowich, recent news articles, official White House statements, and other sources that analyze the extent and meaning of freedom of the press. Since the topic of this paper is very relevant to our current times and is still widely discussed, there is a possibility of utilising more sources if more stories or resources are released concerning this topic. Overall, this paper looks to determine potential violations of the freedom of the press during the second Trump administration, while also focusing on the administration’s response to the pushback from certain news agencies and journalists.

Since I first learned about the trip to this museum, I thought I knew what I was getting myself into. Throughout high school, I learned about the horrors of the Holocaust and World War II, both from a historical and political standpoint. In my free time, I often let my curiosity take me on random searches, leading me to find random facts and stories from the war. With this in mind, I was sure I had a general idea of what I was walking into. However, I never realized that I had really only skimmed the very tip of the iceberg. I thought I knew what I was getting myself into when I first walked into the museum this morning. I knew it was going to be difficult and upsetting, but I also knew how important it was to learn and reflect on this incredibly dark history. I thought I had a clear general idea of the Holocaust. Clearly, I did not. Nothing could have prepared me for what I saw today.

As I stepped into the elevator to begin the exhibition, I already felt overwhelmingly emotional. The brief video that played as we rose to the fourth floor completely changed the mood that I had originally walked in with. As the video ended and the doors opened, I saw an image that I will never forget. It sent a shiver down my spine, and my entire body immediately became tense. As soon as I walked out of the elevator, I felt a heaviness that I had never felt before in a museum, and I carried it along with me for the rest of the day, even after I left the museum. That image is ingrained in my brain, but its brutality was arguably the perfect start to the museum, setting the tone for the rest of the exhibit. 

Regarding some of the historical facts that I read, what stood out the most to me was the frustrating amount of misinformation and lies that were spread from the very beginning. I was so frustrated and upset to see how these lies were influencing people and how they led to horrible atrocities. For example, the burning of thousands of books and the censorship of information simply based on the idea that they were “un-German” was shocking. Furthermore, when people began to question these lies, they were severely punished, many losing their lives, which allowed these lies to spread more viciously. Also, as mentioned multiple times in the museum, the spread of these lies in education, including elementary school, further made these lies more impactful, making it that much more frustrating. This also connects with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the discussion we had in class. It is so jarring to see how Hitler and many others have referred to it when it is so clearly false. Even now, over a hundred years later, these lies are still spread today, regardless of the fact that they have been proven to be false.

There were many moments throughout my time in this museum that have changed my views forever. The use of sound, the architecture, the contrast of the light and darkness, and the overall organization of the museum made the experience a thousand times more impactful. This museum showed me that my education had regrettably missed arguably the most important perspective of the war, not the political or militaristic perspective, but the human perspective from the victims themselves. Today, I realized that I never truly saw history in the eyes of the victims. I only saw this history as another fact to memorize for class or another date to keep in mind. I took the humanity out of the history, and it was one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my education. Before visiting this museum, I simply memorized the number six million. But, now I know, as Abel Herzberg, a Dutch lawyer, writer, and survivor of the Holocaust, said, “There were not six million Jews murdered; there was one murder, six million times.”

Mein Kampf is a jarring glance into the mind of Adolf Hitler. Although very confusing and repetitive, with many moments of endless rambling, Mein Kampf is an incredibly detailed look into Hitler’s mentality and beliefs. Originally published in two separate volumes, Mein Kampf addressed both Hitler’s own life and his plans for the future. With many of his plans being put into action after his release from prison, Mein Kampf provides insight into the many unfortunate horrors that were to follow in the years to come.

Regarding Hitler’s personal life, there was a lot to unpack. Hitler was born in Braunau, Austria, in April 1889. Born into a complicated family, Hitler had many half-siblings from his father’s past relationships, both in past marriages and extramarital affairs. Furthermore, his grandfather was unknown to him, and many believe that there was a chance that his grandfather could have been Jewish, ironically. Only Hitler and one of his sisters survived past their early years, and his father later passed away when he was 13 years old. 

Adolf allegedly had a poor school record, and he eventually left school when he was around 15 years old. Many of his teachers claimed he was lazy, but not necessarily “untalented.” Notably, however, Hitler had a surprising interest in history. A notable figure in his childhood was his teacher, Dr. Pötsch, who was an extreme German Nationalist. It seemed like Dr. Pötsch could have been one of Hitler’s first influences of extreme German Nationalism, with Hitler even naming him in Mein Kampf.

At 18, Hitler inherited his share of his father’s estate and moved to Vienna, where he applied to attend the Academy of the Arts, notably having a passion for art and architecture at the time. He was unfortunately denied admission to the school, and later that year, his mother passed away from breast cancer. He eventually ran out of money from his inheritance and became homeless. He sold drawings to get by and eventually ended up in a hostel, which was one of the moments that started his interest in politics.

Later, he enlisted to fight in World War I, specifically enlisting to be a volunteer in the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment. Here, he developed his passion for uniforms and militarism. He began gaining his political influence once he returned from the war in 1918.

Hitler began writing Mein Kampf in Landsberg Prison, where he was imprisoned for attempting to start a coup in 1923. More specifically, he was convicted of treason for his role in the Beer Hall Putsch, which was his attempt to gain control of the Bavarian government. During his time in jail, he was not in the most brutal conditions, having many gifts and guests during his time there. The first Volume, A Reckoning, was published in July 1925. Volume I discussed Hitler’s childhood, his experience in World War I, and the November Revolution of 1918. The second Volume, The National Socialist Movement, was published in December 1926. Volume II discussed his plans, specifically what the National Socialists had to do to gain and exercise power in Germany. In 1930, both volumes were combined and were published under the name Mein Kampf. By 1939, over 5 million copies were sold worldwide, with the book being translated into 11 different languages.  

In 2015, Mein Kampf came out of copyright in Germany, allowing it to be sold to the public for the first time since it was withheld from publication in 1945 by the German state of Bavaria. Since then, there has been a discussion of whether or not the release of this book back into the German public was the best idea, with some arguing that there was a concern that the text would resonate with audiences today. Many others, however, have argued that it is important to teach the reality of what has happened and spread awareness of the truth of Germany’s past. Regardless, this text, which turned 100 years old this July, has been controversial and dangerous since the day it was written. To this day, it is one of the many bitter and painful reminders of what happened and will continue to do so for many generations to come.

References

“Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” is published | July 18, 1925 | HISTORY.” n.d. History.com. Accessed September 24, 2025. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/july-18/mein-kampf-is-published.

“Mein Kampf | Quotes, Summary, Banned, & Analysis.” 2025. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Mein-Kampf.

“Mein Kampf: The world’s most dangerous book?” 2015. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20150113-the-worlds-most-dangerous-book.

Segal, Corinne. 2015. “Out of print for 70 years, Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ to go on sale in Germany.” PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/hitlers-mein-kampf-to-go-on-sale-in-germany.

Chapters 9 and 10 of Volume II of Mein Kampf further outline Hitler’s vision and plans for the future of Germany and the Nazi Party, specifically his ideas on the foundations of authority, his plans for the S.A. (Sturmabteilung or Stormtroopers), and his view on how Jews used Federalism to divide Germany. These two chapters provide more insight into the specifics of Hitler’s plan while showing how detailed and meticulous his plans were. 

In Chapter 9, Hitler begins by explaining how the old state of Germany rested on three pillars, and how they were destroyed by the Revolution. Hitler was specifically referring to the November Revolution of 1918 that led to the collapse of the German Empire after World War I and established the Weimar Republic in its place, which Hitler highly disliked.  According to Hitler, these three foundational pillars were vital for establishing an “unshakable” authority. 

The first foundation for forming authority was popularity. However, Hitler claimed that authority could not solely rely on popularity. In order to “safeguard” the popular authority, force, the second foundation, was necessary to keep the authority strong. Finally, the combination of those two foundations with the final foundation of tradition was the essential combination for having an “unshakable” authority. The importance of these three pillars and their influence on Hitler was very interesting to see, not only expressed in his writing, but in his actions as well. 

Hitler also discussed that there were three classes that “every national body” could be divided into. He believed there was the “best of mankind” that possessed all of the positive qualities of a society, including courage and, more concerningly, the “eagerness to sacrifice” oneself for their nation. This is an example of the extremes of nationalism, and it shows how far some were willing to go for their nation. The second group was the “scum” of mankind that had all of the negative qualities of society. This group was argued to be behind the collapse of society. In the middle was the “large broad middle” that was neither the most brilliant nor the worst. Although it was not explicitly mentioned at first, it was clear who Hitler was trying to pin as the “scum” of mankind.

Further in this chapter, Hitler blamed the November Revolution of 1918 for the state of Germany at the time, and further stated that the “real” organizers of the Revolution were international Jews, while also setting the stage for his plans for the S.A. The further the chapter goes, the more in-depth Hitler got, and notably the more he had to blame on Jews.

In Chapter 10, Hitler discussed Federalism. Specifically, he discussed how German Federalism at the time was a tactic used by the Jews to divide and further weaken Germany. A noteworthy moment in this chapter was the possible influence of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Throughout this chapter, Hitler painted the Jews as sly and “slick”, saying “the slickness of Jews divided public attention away from themselves…” Similar to the Protocols, where the Jews were essentially painted as an elite group of evil elders scheming to ruin the world, Hitler painted the Jews as clever and sly, using politics to divide Germany and push their own agenda. 

From a political science perspective, it was very interesting seeing how Hitler’s nationalistic ideology influenced his ideas, and furthermore, how nationalism was taken to extremes in his plans. Overall, although it was interesting reading his ideas in a certain way, it was also disheartening knowing what history had in store after this book was published. Knowing the horrors that were soon to come after this book made his writing and his plans much more disturbing.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was first published in 1903. It was serialized in the Russian Newspaper Znamia in St. Petersburg, Russia. Znamia was owned by Pavel Krushevan, who was an incredibly antisemitic writer who owned many other newspapers to promote antisemitism as well. Notably, the Protocols were written after one of Krushevan’s newspapers aided in inciting a pogrom, which is a riot meant to attack a minority group, in this case, the Jews. The pogrom occurred in April 1903 in Kishinev. Now known as the Kishinev Pogrom, this massacre caused the deaths of 49 Jews, leaving around 600 wounded or raped, while also damaging around 1500 Jewish homes. Months after this horrible massacre, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were published in Krushevan’s newspaper, Znamia. Although the author of this book has not been officially confirmed, many believe it was Krushevan who wrote it because although his newspaper published the book itself, he wrote the foreword and afterword. 

Many have claimed that the Protocols were the meeting minutes of the First Zionist Congress that took place in Switzerland in 1897. Although the Protocols were obviously not the meeting minutes from this meeting, this event could have definitely influenced the writing of the Protocols, like the Kishinev Pogrom. Another event that could have inspired some of the writing in this book was the Dreyfus Affair, where a Jewish military officer was accused of treason in France. This affair played a role in the spread of antisemitism during that time. This affair has led to the theory that the Protocols were put together in Paris during this affair. According to the Jerusalem Institute of Justice, there is a possibility that agents of the Okhrana, which was a secret Russian police force, started to put together some of the ideas for this book while they were working in Paris during the affair. Overall, all of these events inspired the writing of this horrid book, and even though the exact author is unconfirmed, the book successfully spread antisemitism at the time that it was published, and has continued to be used in this way over a century later.

In 1905, the Protocols were published in the appendix of Sergei Nilus’s book The Great in the Small: The Coming of the Anti-Christ and the Rule of Satan on Earth, which said that Jews were trying to destroy the world. The Protocols circulated more broadly after the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, but were proven to be false in 1920 by Lucien Wolf, a British Journalist who found a chapter in the 1868 German novel Biarritz that had many ideas found in the Protocols. This proved that the main ideas in the Protocols were false because they were taken straight from Biarritz. Alfred Rosenberg introduced the Protocols to Adolf Hitler in the 1920s, who referred to the Protocols in some of his earlier speeches, and they were later used in Nazi propaganda. 

Another important piece of context to consider was the fact that the Second Industrial Revolution was also occurring when this book was published in 1903. Similar to the First Industrial Revolution, there was an upcoming sense of modernity and advancement with the rise of new technology during this time period. The new status quo was emerging, encouraging materialism due to mass production and new technology, while also encouraging more political discussion due to urbanization, which gave people the opportunity to discuss politics more since they were in closer proximity. Political discussions about social issues like harsh working conditions and welfare were becoming much more common. The author used many of these new trends and tendencies to paint the picture of the aggressive and evil secret Jewish administration, specifically by attacking these new ideas that were becoming the status quo, in order to get a rise out of people. For example, the Protocols often denounced and threatened education and liberty, which would have gotten a rise out of many of the readers at this time, instilling fear and even anger. 

After learning more about the context behind this writing, it is even clearer that the Protocols are false (even though it was obvious based solely on the text itself) and were only meant to spread antisemitism. Although the Protocols were used by many antisemites in the 20th century to spread propaganda and false conspiracies, they are still relevant to this day, being the basis for many modern conspiracy theories in politics. Even though they have been proven to be false multiple times throughout history, the Protocols have unfortunately been a strong basis for antisemitism that is still being seen today. 

References

“An Antisemitic Conspiracy: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion | Holocaust Encyclopedia.” 2024. Holocaust Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion.

“The pogrom that transformed 20th century Jewry — Harvard Gazette.” 2009. Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/04/the-pogrom-that-transformed-20th-century-jewry/.

“The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” 2017. Jerusalem Institute of Justice. https://jij.org/news/the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion/.

Reid, Scott A. 2025. “Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent document that served as a pretext and rationale for antisemitism mainly in the early 20th century. Investigations found that the document was a forgery compounded by officials of the Russian secret police out.” Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Protocols-of-the-Elders-of-Zion.

Zipperstein, Steven. n.d. “Pogrom: Kishinev and the Tilt of History | Department of History.” Department of History. Accessed September 17, 2025. https://history.stanford.edu/publications/pogrom-kishinev-and-tilt-history.

Put simply, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion blames all of the world’s challenges on Jews. War, poverty, oppression, destruction, and more are all illustrated to be caused by this evil Jewish administration that allegedly has all global power.

Used as antisemitic propaganda by many, including Adolf Hitler, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion creates the unhinged claim that the secret “Elders of Zion” are behind many of the problems in the world. As soon as the book begins, it immediately goes to extremes. In Protocol 1, the third point is that this group wants to govern men with bad instincts with violence and terrorisation, not by academic discussion. Considering the time period when this was written, during the Second Industrial Revolution, when academic discussions and political ideologies like liberalism were encouraged and were seen as the new status quo, this book seemed to clearly go against these ideas, to the point of threatening them. For example, in Protocol 1, one of the group’s goals is to end liberty, and later throughout the text, they often denounce liberalism. These, alongside many other controversial messages, are clearly meant to get a rise out of the audience by attacking the things they find important and necessary, like education (Protocol 2), and the Press (Protocol 12), while also enforcing the things that are seen as a threat to society, like war (Protocol 7) and poverty (Protocol 3). As the book goes on, the claims continue to be shocking and extreme, further pushing these conspiratorial ideas.

Even the structure of the writing itself and the syntax of this book are over the top and aggressive, painting Jews in an even darker and more sinister light. The first, and arguably the most obvious example, is the way the book is split into 24 different sections known as “protocols” that are essentially the meeting minutes that documented what this “secret administration” was planning. Having the writing split into 24 different protocols adds to the fear and unease that the author is trying to convey by making it seem more “realistic.”If the author simply listed the conspiracies with no true story behind them, the effects of the writing would not be as apparent. However, by conveying the conspiracies as direct plans from the secret meetings themselves, the writing seems more convincing to some because they can put a group behind the conspiracies, a group that they can direct their blame to. The use of fully capitalized sentences (and even paragraphs) is also notable in pushing this aggressive and sinister agenda. Multiple times throughout the book, multiple sentences are fully capitalized, specifically sentences that have the most controversial or shocking messages. For example, in Protocol 4, the secret administration is planning to “Destroy God,” which is already shocking and controversial on its own, but further in that section, the most aggressive part is fully capitalized, saying that God will be “torn out” of the minds of gentiles and “arithmetical calculations and material needs” will be put in that place. By capitalizing certain sections of the writing, the shocking message not only catches more attention, but it also conveys a more aggressive narrative. 

It is clear how this book has influenced many antisemitic ideas and conspiracy theories ever since it was first published in 1903. Even to this day, many of these ideas are still thrown around in society, many circulating on the internet, often among political discussions that are based on these conspiracy theories. One notable example of this comes from Protocol 10, where this secret administration claims that they are the ones naming the presidents. This idea, alongside the idea that the administration is controlling all of politics, is often pointed out when there are shocking political events. For example, specifically pertaining to this past week’s breaking news, many people were claiming that the many political assassinations, like the assassination of Charlie Kirk, were done by the secret Jewish state to get rid of those who went against them. 

Overall, this book has had a very large impact on the Jewish community for over a century, and it has been the backbone for many antisemites, both historically and in the present day. Even though the contents of the book have been proven to be false multiple times, it still has acted as a tool for antisemites. Although to many, including myself, it is clear that this is a false and extremely dangerous narrative, many have been convinced of its claims and continue to defend it to this day. 

Marquis de Sade wrote the draft of The 120 Days of Sodom in prison in only 37 days. Up to this point, de Sade’s life was the complete opposite of the opulent lifestyle he was raised in during his childhood. After many shocking scandals, including assaulting a woman in 1768 and the horrible “little girls affair” that happened during the winter of 1774 to 1775, de Sade was burned in effigy, survived attempted murder, and lived as an outlaw for many months at a time. While in prison, de Sade lived in rough and hostile conditions, even though he still had the sense of entitlement that he was raised with. All of these jarring pieces can give context to the horrors of the book. His own crimes can even be compared to some of the crimes that are found in this novel, including the “little girls affair” that occurred locked away in his family home in Provence over a treacherous winter, which parallels the 120 days in the novel that occurred in a locked-off castle far away from society. 

Although it may be exceedingly challenging to believe (especially after the last quarter of the book), many of the characters may be representations of French society in the 18th century, especially since de Sade was an active participant in revolutionary politics. For example, the four libertines behind the treacherous 120 days may each represent corruption and evil in certain institutions in society. 

The Bishop represents the church and religious power, and further the hypocrisy of the church. He ironically had a contempt for religion, even though he was the bishop, and he committed many crimes in his lifetime, including murder. The Bishop could have been a way to call out de Sade’s view of the hypocrisy and corruption of the church at that time. 

Durcet represented the corruption in financial institutions since he was a financier (like an investor or banker). His corruption, crimes, and swindling all gave him his power, potentially representing, similar to the other four, how many of those in power gained their power in horrid and unfair ways, including murder. 

The Prèsident de Curval may represent political power and corruption in politics. First, Curval is the oldest of the four and in the worst physical shape, being compared to a “skeleton.” Furthermore, he has been unable to fulfill his official duties for the last 10 years. This could be de Sade’s take on how political power was often controlled by politicians who were too old and unfit for the job. Curval is also the filthiest of the four, both physically and characteristically, being physically repulsive and unclean, while also using “filthy expressions” and being one of the most libertine of the four. This could represent how filthy politicians are metaphorically and how their corruption often keeps them in power for an unreasonably long time.

The Duc de Blangis, the mastermind of the whole operation, may represent the overall corruption of elite French society. Although he inherited a great fortune that started his wealth, he was incredibly cunning and was able to greatly increase his riches through his crimes. He was a “dark and wicked man” who was described as “barbaric,” which can be clearly seen throughout the book. He had immense power, even saying, “Only the law stands in my way, but I defy it.” (de Sade, 1904, p. 10). The Duc is essentially evil incarnate, even killing his own sister and mother for power. Physically, he is described as strong and masculine even at the age of 50. All of these traits could symbolise how overpowered and truly corrupt the elites of society were, showing how far they were willing to go for power and pleasure. 

Overall, de Sade took this book way too far, unfortunately sacrificing the potential message that he meant to convey. The message (if there was even a message left by the disturbing end of the book) is lost in the nauseating context of the story. As mentioned in the introduction before the novel, written by Will McMorran and Thomas Wynn, this story “reflects and represents the horrors of incarceration,” and it sheds light into the mind of a very twisted individual during a very turbulent time. I understand that literature often needs to be shocking. It must elicit certain emotions in a way that forces readers to think critically to properly convey a message. However, in this case, Marquis de Sade completely missed that mark and essentially erased any possible meaning or messages in this novel by creating such a vile story. One could also argue that the underlying themes were just an excuse for this twisted individual to write a perverted story. Nevertheless, this book, put simply, was horrible, both structurally and in content.

This vile book should be renamed The 120 Days of Hell. It was a never-ending, dreadful, gruesome, and downright sickening story that never once failed to evoke some sort of negative emotion, be it disgust or absolute horror. Not only was the story itself nauseating, but the style of writing and the pacing, with de Sade maddeningly describing the story day by day, made this book incredibly difficult to read. If one decides to take up the burden of reading this book, it is clear that it cannot be read all at once, not only due to the intense content of the story, but also the convoluted pace of the writing.  

The introduction takes up the first 66 pages of the book and is arguably the most informative part of the story, although it is maddeningly drawn out. The introduction is really the only part of the novel that provides a story that is easier to follow, with an almost clear goal in mind. It gives us a glimpse into the lives of the four libertines, including their personalities and dark secrets. It sheds light on their corrupt lives and their dark pasts, while also setting up the rest of the horrid novel. The introduction is sometimes straightforward enough in describing the characters and the setting, which makes it a little easier to comprehend compared to the rest of the book. However, it is also subject to a lot of rambling in between that may distract the reader from the main storyline (if there is even one left by the end of the novel). In regard to the content itself, de Sade does not shy away from jumping right into dark and perverted imagery and commentary, but unfortunately, nothing can prepare the reader for what the rest of the novel holds.

Part One of the novel was the most difficult to read in terms of structure. It was incredibly long, and it seemed to ramble quite a bit, especially since it was written day by day. It was very easy to confuse the characters and lose track of what was happening. Unlike the following parts of the novel, Part One still attempts to give a slight focus to the story itself, although it often loses the story to the sexual content. Overall, Part One did not need to be over 200 pages long, especially when the majority of those pages didn’t add much meaning to the story other than perverted sexual content. When I was reading Part One, I was disgusted and incredibly uncomfortable the entire time, and I honestly thought that this novel could not get much worse. Boy, was I wrong.  

After the excessively long and drawn-out first part of the novel, the book’s narrative shifts completely, with the writing being almost exclusively a list of repulsive acts that gradually worsen until the final section, Part Four. This can be attributed to the fact that Marquis de Sade was only able to complete a draft of the story in his lifetime. Parts Two through Four, although all three combined are shorter than Part One, were arguably the most detestable parts of the novel. By the end of Part Two, I lost all hope for this novel, which I never recovered, even by the end of the book. The fact that the majority of the last quarter of the book is a list of acts so repulsive and vile that I had to put down the book multiple times made the ending of the book almost impossible to reach. Parts Three and Four were so deranged and twisted, I could not even comprehend the point of the book at that point. Put simply, I hated every moment of it. 

The 120 Days of Sodom is my least favorite book that I have ever read, and I hope to never read something like it again. I never once felt any positive emotion reading it, nor do I have any positive feedback for it now. Although there is a possibility that this novel is meant to represent something more than its revolting content, there could have been a much better way to convey that message. Overall, it is safe to say that the twisted and infamous Marquis de Sade has left this reader absolutely traumatized.

In the time it took to fully read and truly understand this clever essay, there was never once a dull moment. From the moment I began reading to the moment I wrote my final annotations, I was completely enthralled with this essay. This grotesque and disturbing writing was a brilliant way to grab people’s attention and make a statement, a trait that many forbidden texts are proud of. Simply stated, this essay is shocking and is guaranteed to make anyone’s head turn, while expertly using the shocking material in a satirical way to express an important message. 

The essay starts by bringing attention to the poor mothers begging for their helpless children instead of working for their “honest lively-hood” and working to improve their own lives. Swift mentions how disappointing it is to witness such a sad sight in society, especially when those same children often end up with disappointing lives themselves. Many parents in Ireland faced the challenge of raising a child without having the ability to support them. He claims that these children are a grievance and that someone needs to make them useful in some way. He calculates that there are 120,000 children born to parents who are unable to take care of them. Furthermore, many of these children are apparently not useful because they can’t work the majority of the jobs needed. His solution is the following: 20,000 children will be kept for “breed” (according to his words), and the remaining 100,000 will be “offered” to the rich and wealthy of society…as food. 

The essay takes a dark turn from this moment forward, and it continues to spiral until the very end. Throughout the rest of the essay, Swift meticulously describes the benefits of feeding these children to the elites of society, arguing that it will help relieve the poor of some of their burdens, while simultaneously giving pleasure to the rich. Although the content of this essay may be distressing, its true purpose is to invoke a harsh reaction in order to convey an eye-opening message about society in Ireland in the 18th century. Swift’s true argument is meant to call out the elite of society, like the politicians and landowners, for seeing the poor as an inconvenience rather than as actual people who are struggling. 

Swift utilises clever irony and satire to fully convey his message, leaving the reader pensive and reflective. One of my favorite examples of this is found in the very last line of the essay, where he admits he has no children to sacrifice for the very cause he is arguing for, because his child is too old and his wife can no longer have children. This ironic line calls out the hypocrisy of the elite in his society, who expected the poor to do something for their benefit, while refusing to do that same thing themselves. 

Overall, Swift does an excellent job of conveying his message in a very memorable way that will stick with their readers even after they are done reading. 

If there is anything I took from the Gospels of Mary of Magdala and Judas Iscariot, it is that the world of Christianity and its complexities stretches far beyond my mind’s comprehension. Although I am a Christian who has grown up learning about the Bible and its teachings both at church and in my own home, I admittedly do not know nearly as much as I should. Coincidentally, to further add to my confusion and ignorance, our discussions of these two intriguing gospels further proved that I am barely even standing on the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the history of Christianity and its teachings. 

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a non-canonical text discovered in Cairo in 1896 by German scholar Dr. Carl Reinhardt. As of right now, around half of the gospel is missing. Already containing debatable and controversial material, the incomplete Gospel of Mary Magdalene has raised serious debates about Christian teachings, and it has sparked the discussion of what teachings are right or wrong and who has the authority to decide their validity.

The text itself is shocking to many and is unsurprisingly considered a controversial text in Christianity. Some of its “radical” teachings include the rejection of Jesus’ suffering and death as the path to eternal salvation, and the idea that there is no such thing as sin. The text also addresses Mary Magdalene and her experience as a follower of Jesus, addressing a woman’s role in interpreting Jesus’ teachings. More specifically, in the Gospel of Mary Magdala, Mary is the only one who comprehended one of the Savior’s teachings, while the other disciples are left distraught and confused. When Mary attempts to explain and interpret the message to help the other disciples understand, they scrutinize her and question her reliability because she is a woman. 

Regarding the Gospel of Judas, what stood out the most was the question of who wrote it. One could argue that Judas or someone who wanted to clear his name took some part in it because, overall, this gospel paints Judas in a better light than expected. He is seen, according to his gospel, as a favored disciple. Many times, Jesus comes to him personally to discuss secret teachings and other messages that are not shared with the other disciples. This favorable image of Judas would arguably be written by someone who wanted to clear his name. Even in the conclusion, Judas’ betrayal is not painted as something horribly tragic; it focuses more on just stating the facts, further leading me to think it was written by Judas or someone trying to clear his name.

I struggled to understand both of these gospels when I first read them, but once I understood the context and the messages of both after re-reading them and discussing them in class, it made me reflect on the individuals who gradually compiled the New Testament together over an incredibly long period of time. What gave them the authority to determine what made the cut and what didn’t? In addition, how many other stories have been lost with time that could have answered many of our questions today? Even what we have access to today is flawed, like these two gospels that are missing so much of their context. As time goes by and more is lost, who will determine what will be kept and what will be forgotten?

Hi, this is Isabella!