This was one of the most interesting magazines I have ever read to say the least. Never before have I seen images of dead or prisoners of war in such a casual context in a magazine. The authors are so casual about the constant state of war that the Middle East appears to be in and mostly just inform the public of any new developments in the ongoing wars. It was very frightening for me to see how normalized war is seen in this magazine because I am not exposed to war like this at all. The magazine has several issues, each expanding upon the situation further and providing a different perspective on it. The magazine goes over US involvement in Middle East conflicts, depicting the US as an evil force that allows and supports wars happening. There is definitely bias in this magazine, which although t exists everywhere, all of the writers s=had a very similar opinion on the issues at hand. It was interesting to read this after reading The Satanic Verses and taking a deeper insight onto what is going on in these countries at the time. Disturbing images of decapitated heads are shown, not as a threat (because the intended audience is other readers in the area) but just to show how daily life is there.
Author: Kevin Halpin
This is a couple thousand pages of the most confusing information I have ever read. This person’s name was Berwick, although their real name was Fjotolf Hansen. They were a Norwegian citizen who was sent to prison after killing 70 people and injuring a couple hundred more. He is most known for setting off a car bomb in Glasgow and then going to a leftist youth camp dressed up as a police officer and killing anyone he saw. This shooting occurred in 2011 and this manifesto was published just an hour and a half before the attack. The title 2083 can be tied back to the battle of Vienna which occurred 400 years prior. During this battle was the last Ottoman invasion of Europe, reflecting upon the common theme in his manifesto that Muslims are a source of evil. In the text itself, Berwick mentions other readings from this class and others that he was inspired by such as The Satanic Verses and The Anarchists Cookbook. Berwick was extremely racist parts of his manifesto (kind of a manifesto, although not really talking about his plans as much), leading to censorship of this text. This text is very odd because of the information that is in it. It is hard to read, has so many unnecessary details, and does not really connect to a main thesis that well. There are parts of this book where Berwick writes down the economy of several nations and compares them and he even has his pictures on the last few pages. Overall, he is a racist individual who was not great at writing and did some messed up stuff. Also, our teachers name, Nabil Al-Tikriti was in this text!
This text was extremely fun to read and it was actually a very good book. Unlike some of the other readings we have read, The Satanic Verses is well written and easy to read. This book also received a lot of controversy, leading to the author receiving death threats. This book was mainly controversial because of how it posed the Muslim religion. The book used a derogatory term for Muhammad, Mahaund, and poses themes such as revelations not being true and not representing the religion in it’s entirety. This caused a huge debate between Britain, where Salman Rushdie was from and published his book, and Iran. Iran then issued a fatwa, or a legal opinion by someone who is qualified, that ordered for Rushdie to be killed because he attacked the whole religion by publishing this book. In addition to this, Rushdie was born Muslim and still wrote this text later, which is considered apostasy. Because of the fatwa issued, people in the Islamic community had several attempts to murder Rushdie, who was then put into protective services by the British government. The British government thought that Muslim policies should have no impact on British citizens and due to this protected Rushdie. Rushdie was even later knighted because he was seen as a hero of free speech. With the controversy the British government had with Iran, they issued the Iran government to revoke the fatwa; however, because the person who issued the fatwa was already dead, the fatwa could not be revoked. Although there were still attempts at the murder of Rushdie, the Iran government generally agrees that that is in the past and does no longer recognize or promote the killing of Rushdie. I think that this topic is very interesting because I wonder how other religions would react to someone mocking or not recognizing their beliefs. For example, Christianity has had points in time when leaders of the religion would prosecute those who defy their beliefs or mock them in any way. I could see books being banned or frowned upon in a religion but I am not sure if every religion has the passion and rigidness that would convince someone to murder another. There are always some people who may do this, but as a whole I do not think that this would happen with Christianity. In some ways the issue of religious tolerance reminds me of the Nazi party. Not to say that they are the same or that much alike, but both included a strong leader guiding people into doing what they think is right, involving killing others who do what is considered wrong. If a major leader came forth in Christianity and the religion became more extreme and strict, I could see something like what happened with this book happening as well.
The Turner Diaries, written by William Luther Pierce under the name Andrew MacDonald in 1978, is a fictional diary entry written by the protagonist Earl Turner. The diary entries in this book span several years and are inside the Unite States, with most being around DC, and discuss Turner’s involvement in a white supremacist militant group aimed at destroying the government and all other non-white races. The book portrays Turner as someone who is oppressed and who has their rights limited, such as his weapons being taken away from him. Turner slowly grows to have more of an impact in this militant group and the book ends with him making a final sacrifice to destroy a government building. The book portrays African Americans as Cannibals and associates them with very negative terms as well as portraying Jewish people as monsters in government positions. In the epilogue of the book, this organization we have been following has eliminated every other race. Although there are other plot points in the book such as Turner’s relationship with a women, the book mainly focuses on actions the militant group takes to harm others, portraying it in a heroic tone. This militant group that Turner is a part of is extremely racist and so was the author William Luther Pierce. This book inspired many brutal white-supremacist or domestic terrorist attacks, such as the Oklahoma City bombing, the dragging of an African American by car, and the Order, a white supremacist organization based on the Turner diaries. One striking feature of this book is the Cohen Act which is passed by the government. The Cohen Act made it illegal for people to have weapons inside their homes, something which Turner and the organization he is a part of are very against. Cohen is also a popular Jewish surname, meaning that some of the people in the government were Jewish and possibly named this act after themselves. Turner and his organization are very clearly strong antisemitic and the choice of Pierce adding Cohen into the book shows his hatred against Jewish people. Another major event in this book is the day of the rope. This is a day in the book where “race betrayers”, white people who do not support the goals of white supremacy, are killed and hung. Reading this book, especially at the mention of day of the rope, I could tell that there are similarities between this book and the insurrection that took place on January 6th of 2021. There were messages tweeted out before the insurrection referencing the day of the rope and even one of the symbols of the insurrection was a rope for hanging, echoing what happened in the Turner Diaries. Both groups of people had the goal of destroying or punishing the government because they feel they are not fairly treated, so it could be very possible that Th Turner Diaries influenced the insurrection. The format of this book is very informal and it acts almost like an action movie where the main character has to save the day against the corrupt government. The introduction to this book was also very interesting to me. It went over how important this book is and how it changed how everything is, leading to the white race triumphing above others.
This text serves as the manifesto of it’s writer, Ted Kaczynski: also known as the unabomber. This manifesto describes Kaczynski’s rage against the industrial age and what has been brought up along with it. The text itself is very well written and although some of the ideas inside are very harmful, Kaczynski wrote this intellectually. He started out as a professor in mathematics and with the rise of new technology slowly began to become the unabomber. The unabomber sent bombs through the mailing service, mainly to professors at universities. He killed 3 people and injured around 23. Kaczynski soon after lived in the wild in a cabin where he likely wrote this manifesto. He was arrested after his brother noticed his writing in a newspaper and Kaczynski is still in prison today. The text opposes the use of technology, stating that it causes more harm than good and that it will lead to people suffering, which in some ways with how people use their phones today is very accurate. Technology seems to represent the rise of power in individuals and their control over other people’s lives, which is an important theme in this text. In some ways this text is very similar to the Anarchist’s Cookbook, such as the idea that power should be rejected; however, unlike the Anarchist’s Cookbook this text refuses the use of new technology. Not only this, but this text also refuses some new ways of thinking that were brought up at this time. Kaczynski is very against the idea of leftists and some of their more liberal ideas. He states that leftists’ goal when starting movements is to assimilate others into their own culture and destroy the other’s culture and how leftists blindly follow power. He also describes how many of the undesirable characteristics of society, such as depression, can be seen through the left, likely reflecting his hatred towards the industrialization of America. Kaczynski further states that leftists hate the strong and that they are against much of what America stands for. He writes about his hatred with homophobic people, also illustrating his hate of change created by society. Kaczynski himself describes his desires for living out in the wild in a natural setting. Kaczynski is not stating that traditional values are good, in fact he mentions in the text how conservatives are foolish. He instead seems to be either advocating for the world to stay the exact same way or to let nature take it’s course and have little interaction with it. Kaczynski states that the technological advancements created by innovators, big companies, governments, and scientists are all corrupt due to their purpose not being the well being of others but instead for the pursuit of power or because power is being forced upon them. Some of this I think is somewhat accurate because with power there seems to come some sort of corruption. The abusing of this power ends up harming society in so many ways, but I am not sure there is any true way for one person to not have some kind of power over another. Kaczynski wrote this not just from his own ideas, but the ideas he shares have come from many people before him. He and so many before him have wrote about societal failings and possible solutions to help fix them in some way. Long distance apart living families, phone addictions, and the decay of nature, all products of the increasingly changing America, and other problems are almost predicted in this text. One other thing I found interesting about this text is how he views anthropologists. He finds that the classification and correction of terms used does not make much sense and should stop. The idea of anthropologists not comparing cultures as much and looking at cultures through their own perspective, cultural relativity, is seen as wrong to Kaczynski in this text. It seems like what Kaczynski is actually afraid of is change. He seems to prefer what he already knows, like most of us, and purposefully tries to isolate himself from others and the changing world. I am not sure if this could be why he sent the bombs, but it would be interesting to look into.
Jesus Christ Superstar was originally a rock-opera play that was adapted to the movies in this 1973 film. The movie tells the tale of Judas Iscariot and Jesus Christ in the period of time soon before Jesus was crucified. The time period is not set in stone, as there are cars and guns in a story set thousands of years ago. The movie portrays Jesus Christ and his followers as hippies with the goal of spreading peace and being against the current government and it’s policies. Judas gets concerned that Jesus might be getting too far astray with all of his followers and thinks that maybe Jesus forgot what his mission was in the first place. Judas ends up giving away Jesus to the government who then kill Jesus. This movie is super corny. It has some very serious dialogue but at the same time it has Judas singing to a pair of guards who might kill him and has Jesus in the same scene as a tank. I actually really liked the movie, especially because corny movies such as Shaw Bros kung fu movies. Some of the messages in the movie were a little bit hard to understand in the movie because of all of the singing, but I actually learned a lot about Judas’s character. Judas is very close to Jesus and may have even been jealous that Jesus was giving more attention to people such as Mary than himself. We see how Jesus and Judas constantly fight in the movie and how Judas slowly loses faith in Jesus as a friend. We get an insiders view onto Judas, seeing how confused he is with Jesus wanting Judas to end up helping kill Jesus and unsure if Jesus is putting what matters ahead of everything he is doing right now. I felt sympathetic to Judas in the movie. Judas did not intend to kill Jesus and debated long and hard when making the decision to give Jesus away. He felt hurt but also was very confused in Jesus’s goals and policies which have apparently changed since Judas was with him. Jesus had some moments where he was very aggressive, such as when he yells at Judas or when at the market he breaks all of the stands containing things he finds to be wrong. Judas feels terrible about his decision and ends up killing himself in the end of the movie. Although Judas led to the death of Jesus, this movie made me think differently about the situation we read about in The Gospel of Judas. Judas and Jesus felt more like real people with real problems and feelings. I am still not sure completely why Judas gave Jesus away but now I think there must be more dialogue that has led to this happening than just what I have heard about.
The SCUM manifesto, written by Valarie Solanas at age 31, is a text from the 60s describing how awful men are and why they are not needed in society. Valarie herself was the leader of SCUM, the Society for Cutting Up Men, and was a radical feminist, even shooting Andy Warhol several times. She states that men who transition to women or people who are not binary should die or kill themselves. The text describes that the system of money should be abolished, men who support SCUM should kill themselves and other men to bring the goals of SCUM to life, and that men only want to be more like women. The text as a whole seems to be based on the communist manifesto, except that the communist manifesto has a better system organization than this text. She mentions how men would act as guards of the society during meetings, very similar to the gestapo of the Nazis and some ideas such as the idea of women domination reflect the ideas of the Nazi party. Valarie will constantly come back to the idea that men are not needed, which in some ways they are not today due to sperm banks, although this is a highly debatable topic. She views women who support her movement as actually hurting SCUM more than helping it and sees men who support SCUM as those who should kill themselves in service of SCUM. Some ideas presented by Valarie make a lot of sense and are realistic, such as the idea that men hide their feelings and are scared to express who they are, while others do not make much sense such as the idea that only women at birth should be allowed to live. Many of the ideas and hatred she shows towards men is likely linked to the abusive men that have been involved in her life. For example, her father abused her as a child, possibly leading to the belief that all men are bad. By the way Valarie writes, it seems like she could be one of the only members of SCUM or possibly the only member. When she wrote this it is possible that there was no such thing as SCUM. Valarie does not provide scientific evidence or any really hard evidence that men should all die, but just keeps repeating it over and over.
The Anarchist’s Cookbook is a text describing ways to revolt and rebel in small ways against the government and big corporations, but, unlike the name suggests, it is not really about anarchism. In fact, the author of this text, William Powell, stated his opposition towards acts of anarchism which can be shown in his reoccurring references to the Vietnam War. Anarchism is an ideology stating that all forms of government are unnecessary and undesirable. Powell describes ways to disrupt society but never mentions that we would be better off without forms of government. He implies that our government and big corporations are corrupt which is the reason he wrote this text: to give ways of resisting authority of corrupt bodies. Commentators of this text instead said that Powell’s writing reflects Nihilism, the idea that existence is meaningless, more closely. Powell very ominously mentions that humans do not matter and that freedom should overcome the values of life, reflecting nihilism. Powell wrote this text as a teenager and has later said that he regrets writing this text, likely because it is still opposed by the government today and is viewed as a book that someone should not own because of the ideas it might suggest. He wrote this text in opposition to the US involvement in the Vietnam War which is likely why he views the government as a corrupt body. Powell talks to the reader with mannerisms that one would expect a friend to talk to them. He is very casual about all of the information he shares, even when discussing the making of explosives and drugs. In one particular section in the chapter on how to make drugs, he states that one of the drugs should not be used at all, emphasizing how dangerous it is. This was striking to me because I did not expect that someone writing a book on illegal topics or even a book without illegal topics would include something they don’t agree with or think is unsafe in the text. Powell discusses how one way that someone can disrupt society and hurt big corporations is by stealing from stores, but only those that are part of big corporations. To me this was interesting because I don’t necessary disagree with this statement. If someone steals from a corrupt corporation as a means to get by or to hurt the business in any way, they are not doing a bad thing, and one can even view this as a good thing that they are doing ti help society as a whole. Some aspects of this text can be applied to today’s world while others are not as useful today. For example, Powell discusses how to make a radio or other electronic devices to ease drop in on or record conversations, which many of us today can more easily just use our phones instead. Many of the words used in this text are also outdated but that is to be expected from a book written 50 years ago. Some aspects that can be applied to today’s world involve involve ways to deal with police brutality and ways to make drugs. The topic of police brutality surprised me in this text because I was not expecting to have so much written 50 years ago to still be relevant today or in some ways more relevant. I think one of the best ways to approach this text is by viewing it as a commentary on society. Some ideas in the text are possibly very destructive and harmful to society but is that at the fault of Powell or society for making people want to revolt in such a way?
Mein Kampf includes many different scrambled ideas from Hitler, his opinions, his propaganda, and his views on society as a whole. A reoccurring theme in Mein Kampf is Hitler critiquing others and promoting his own ideas, with the main groups he critiques being Jews and Marxists. His critiquing includes stating why the Marxists would want Jewish domination and he describes Jewish people as parasites. Much of Hitler’s writing in this book seems to echo the Protocols of the Elders of Zion very closely, as both discuss how Jewish people want to harshly rule over others and destroy cultures. He will bring up how he views policies should be carried out whenever he talks about Jewish people, which he will insert in without context, stating that he would simply be better than and not be like the Jewish people. The purpose of this text seems to be propaganda or a vesicle to let Hitler share his ideas and his party’s interests, which can be seen with how often he states his goals. Hitler also contradicts himself multiple times throughout the text. In one section in particular, he implies that Marxism is bad because it will destroy democracy and then later states that the system of democracy does not work and that a better system involves one person having more control and power over the masses, more like a dictatorship. Why would he give the Marxists, a group he despises, the benefit of destroying an ineffective system of government? It seems most likely that he is framing the situation in a way where he seems like the hero and Marxism seems like the villain. Hitler blames the fall of Germany after WWI on the Marxists, who he associates with Jewish people because he claims Karl Marx was a Jew multiple times in the text.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is supposedly an ancient text dating back thousands of years describing how Jewish people want to take over all of Europe and harm everyone who is not Jewish. The introduction was written by Victor Marsdin, who has been known to support antisemitic ideas. The text itself is very confusing to read, and is full of errors and discontinuities. For example there is a section in the protocols that discusses how god is not real. To me, this was confusing and my first sign that maybe this writing isn’t accurate. Jewish people believe in god, so why would they outlaw it or try to destroy it? The text reads like it is coming from multiple people’s perspectives from different times. Because of this and because it mentions some institutions that could not have existed when the book was originally written, the book could not have been untouched from thousands of years of work on it. This leaves two main possibilities. One is that the text has had details added to it and changed over time or that the text was not actually written thousands of years ago. For me, I think that the second options is much more believable here because of what I said about the text stating that god should be destroyed. Also, how come we are only starting to hear about this text at the start of the 20th century. The oldest book we know of is from 1906 and remains in a British museum. Also, details such as who the elders actually are are not included. One would think that if you would write a manifesto on world domination you would write your name in it, especially if it was a widespread document among a community, such as the Jewish community. This text was privately published in Russia at the start of the 20th century and then it expanded to other parts of the world. Many antisemitism ideas could have spread from this document and it is very possible that this document was written by someone to express the reasoning behind actions to Jewish people. If the group being oppressed seems like they are doing something awful, then people will feel justified in their actions whether or not that statement is actually true. Perhaps the ideas of this document spread as far to lead Hitler to come to his ideas about Jewish people, since the document gained more popularity before Hitler wrote Mein Kampf and before WWII. The text seems to be a forgery due to the reasons listed above and it was a very incoherent text to read.
Concentrating on Judas and Jesus’s teachings to Judas, the Gospel of Judas, a Gnostic text from around the 5th century based on the papyrus paper it was written on, shows a different side of the church and Jesus. Jesus and Judas, who are usually depicted as good and trusted friends, are shown to have a more complicated relationship than the bible tells us. After Judas asks Jesus questions about faith and the church, Jesus responds by laughing at him and saying rude remarks to Judas. This surprised me because I’ve never heard this side of Jesus or this side of his relationship with Judas. The Jesus I’ve been told about was pure and would never hurt anyone on purpose, but in this text, Jesus says things to make Judas feel as though he is lesser than that of the other disciples. Later in the text, the disciples ask Jesus about visions they have seen of a church (which did not exist at the time). Jesus responds to this by talking about how Bishops of the church sacrifice children and wives and commit sacrilegious acts. The disciples seem to be very confused by this, especially because Jesus told them that none of them truly know who he is and he represents. Jesus says this is a way that it makes it seem like he does not think that the disciples are or will accurately represent the church. Why is Jesus saying all of this? My first reaction was that this could possibly be a commentary on the church and how people will go along with an idea without thinking about it themselves. Could Jesus see how the church would turn out and was disappointed by it so he tried to change how the disciples thought about him and the soon to be church? If so, why would Jesus have this insight that the church might be corrupt at this moment? Maybe either the bible hides details on Jesus having this insight and he had beliefs that the church might be corrupt earlier. But why would this information be hidden from the bible? This information could have been hidden to make sure people don’t question the religion and don’t start opposing it. It is also possible that this gospel contains information that isn’t true and that the rest of the information given in this gospel does not line up with the rest of Jesus’s history and the other gospels. Towards the end of the gospel, Judas gives information on Jesus’s whereabouts in exchange for some money. Could it be that Jesus acted the way he did towards Judas because he knew that Judas would betray him or did Judas betray Jesus because of what Jesus said to him? I think a conclusion on the the intentions of the characters in this text can only be reached with more information. Perhaps Jesus had a plan in mind knowing that Judas would betray him, but it does not seem likely that either one of them would betray or be mean to one another so instantly given their good relationship with one another. Overall, I found this text very interesting and it made me ask questions that I myself had not thought of before.
After reading and discussing this text with classmates, I have a better understanding of some themes and why this text might matter, but I still hated reading this. Everything that the 4 libertines, the banker, bishop, judge, and duke, did was disturbing and almost traumatic. This being said, I do think there are some things that one can better understand after reading or at least being told themes in this book. As for why Sade wrote this text, perhaps he did not have faith in the idea of justice after he felt hat he was wrongly imprisoned, leading him to write a text that destroys the entire idea of justice, such as most of the children in the end dying horrific deaths even though they did not do anything wrong. Some could say that Sade had this writing as sort of a journal where he could pour all of his most impure ideas onto paper as he could and that he had no intention of publishing the book, but because of his intensive planning and corrections Sade makes or notes of making later, it seems likely that Sade had every intention to show this book (although at the moment it was just scraps of paper) to others and perhaps publish it too. A very interesting point that was made in discussion was that the events of this book can very closely relate to events that happen today, more than 200 years after this text was written. With priests and religious figures still raping and abusing young children today, and the power and freedom that comes with being rich and, this can be seen. Some examples of parallel between this book’s events and today’s are uncanny, such as the Epstein case. Epstein carried out a similar plan as that of the 4 libertines. Epstein brought children to an island where he would commit terrible crimes to them, whereas the libertines brought children to an isolated castle. A number of people, including presidents, princes, attorneys, financiers, and more are rumored to have been involved in Epstein’s island incident, similar to how other elite members of society were the libertines in 120 Days of Sodom. Even between these two cases of rape, assault, and torture, the duke and the president or prince are similar in role, the attorneys are similar to the judge in role, and the banker is similar to financiers in role. Epstein and those who were also involved could have gotten the idea to perform the acts they did by reading the 120 Days of Sodom, but I think it is much more likely that they did not. History has a way of repeating itself and has shown that people with power will do terrible things unless they are regulated. Do I think that Sade’s purpose of writing the 120 Days of Sodom was to highlight how corrupt society is in this way? Not at all. Sade used terms that described the libertines as heroes and did not contain much reflection if any on the events that took place in the book. For me, one of the largest takeaways from discussing and reading this book is how corrupt power can be. To see such similar events occur today, a time when one would not think that such atrocities could take place, is in some ways a reality check. It tells us that these problems are still occurring and unless there are serious changes made to society, these problems will continue to occur. Looking back at the 4 libertines in 120 Days of Sodom, they each possess a corrupt trait in which they represent. The bishop shows how the church abuses power and goes against many of the principles it enforces. The duke shows how nobility use their power to make decisions that overrule others and control people’s lives in harmful ways. The judge shows how there really is no such thing as justice. The banker represents wealth and how with wealth, you can not only get what you want, even if it is criminal, but also get away with it. These 4 libertines don’t just show parallels to extreme cases such as the Epstein case, but also apply to every day life. There are always things that others do that undermines the rights of others and causes pain and suffering to communities. From rape, to police brutality, to corrupt local politicians, to landlords who evict, there are so many problems in society that we think of as normal, but have terrible consequences on people. The 120 Days of Sodom helped me understand why these issues are so important by painting me a horrifically vivid image of what these issues are, but I do not think that one has to read this book to figure out that there are issues in society. One just has to open their eyes and take a look at what is really happening.
The 120 days of Sodom is perhaps the most impure tale ever written. The author, Marquis de Sade was a Frenchman who lived in the 18th century. He raped women, killed children, was a prisoner multiple times, was rich, and committed acts of sacreligion. This book was originally written on odds and ends that Sade found around the prison, where he wrote the book. However, the book was never finished because the Bastille was stormed and it was preserved by individuals under the book was eventually copied and printed. Sade began life as a very rich kid, allowing him to escape from prison through bribes and allowed him to have more freedom of what he did when compared to the majority of the population at the time. This combined with the fact that France was at the time having a rebellion led to Sade having more freedom to do as he pleased. This meant that Sade would go on to commit terrible acts such as rape of children and adults as well as the killing of at least one child, although it is likely that he killed more given that there were human bones found in his yard. Sade had planned to write the 120 Days of Sodom long before he actually started to write it, although interestingly enough, Sade fell out of interest of the book after it seemed to have disappeared at the Bastille. This seemed odd to me given the amount of effort and preparation he had writing this book. Who would write about such a terrible and horrific event like Sade? Was he a monster who generally enjoyed writing about the atrocities committed or did he write this book as a statement about free speech and it’s implications? Based on way Sade puts the 4 main characters in this book as protagonists, I would say that Sade had no intention of writing the book as a statement piece towards what should and should not be allowed regarding the freedom of speech. Sade also mentioned how he felt as though he was becoming mentally-ill in prison from isolation, maybe leading him to be able to be able to write this book. Based on the actions Sade committed throughout his life, it seems likely that he wrote this book to highlight people he looks up to and to describe their lives as best as he could. There have been movies written on this book and this book remains one of the most controversial pieces of literature today for me and many others, which Sade likely did not initially intend for this book given how he did not seem to care how people viewed him because of how public he makes his affairs and crimes. This book was very disturbing to read and I would not read it again, but I feel like it is important to discuss how and why someone would write a book like this and what would drive them to write it so that people could understand the terrible crimes that people would commit and have committed.
While most depictions of the bible show the disciples proudly spreading the gospel, shows Mary as a prostitute, and has little representation of women, the Gospel of Mary shatters expectations. The Gospel of Mary is a second century writing, with the version being read from probably around the 5th century, that describes the disciples being scared about the sharing of the word because of the fate of Jesus when he told his word. Mary comforted them by telling them of a vision that the Savior shared with her. The disciples were furious and confused. The ideas The Savior shared with her how sin is a natural phenomenon and is unavoidable. The disciples were furious that the Savior told Mary of these visions instead of the disciples. The story of Mary is one that was likely removed from the teachings and gospels that were spread due to it involving a strong women leader and the disciples being seen as weak and scared. The gospel could possibly be forged, but given the multiple copies and material that the gospel was written on, it is likely that this is a relic from older times. Mary was shown as a strong leader, which many could have opposed due to her being a women. This writing was translated over time and changed progressively with the translation in English being complete around WWII. Many ideas, such as the idea that sin is not real could have been too much information for the disciples to handle in the present moment and could be overwhelming.
Milton, an opponent of censorship, had many views influenced heavily by his experiences (like diviorce) and religion that many people may immediately link with liberal ideas. I found it interesting that Blasi made the argument that Milton was not making this paper based on liberalism, but rather what he valued thinking about in that present moment, which could be censorship issues, divorce, or religion. Although some of these ideas can be applied to liberal ideas today, it is important to note that he did not intend for this writing to be used to support liberal ideas. Many of his views on censorship come from the common practice of censorship (mainly by catholic church, which can be seen as why he despises them) at that time, and he strongly encouraged the idea that it is important for ideas to be spread so that one can become closer to god by learning and gathering new information. While many people were weary of new ideas being spread because of the harmful impacts it could have on manipulation and the false spread of information to people, Milton believed that people could learn from new ideas, even bad ones, to grow as a person and expand their point of view. Milton wrote to inform others and share his point of view to hopefully inspire change. He is not the liberal model, he is just a person writing their beliefs and showing them to others. It would be interesting to look into to see what exactly the Catholic Church was doing at that time so I could better understand his reasoning for his harsh comments towards the Catholic Church.
Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!