Turtles Can Fly was an incredibly moving, haunting, and tragic film. I was immediately affected by the children, many of whom were missing limbs or severely injured, making do and surviving on their own without parents of supervising adults, clearing minefields for money, despite the danger. It was disturbing to me that the explosions, bombs, and death in general was routine and ordinary. I wonder if there was any controversy or backlash over this film, either due to its criticism of the United States or its depiction of the Iraqi soldiers. I have some basic background knowledge of American invasion of Iraq, but I wish I knew more, so I could truly grasp the film and all its references. It was painful to watch as Satellite’s optimism that the Americans would save them, expressed throughout the film, was completely gone by the end of the film when the United States invaded, as he did not even want to watch the Americans arrive. I watched the film in a state of fear and dread, as I knew that it was impossible that they would all make it out alive, and although I predicted what would happen to Agrin and Riga, and what Riga’s origins were, it was still very difficult to watch. It is my understanding that this film was critically acclaimed, and I can certainly see why. The child actors were fantastic, the cinematography was great, and the screenplay was very good and emotional. It was also interesting to see a Middle Eastern film, because I had not seen one before, and I would be interested in watching more in the future. Although it was emotionally exhausting, I am glad I watched it. I do not think I would watch it again, or at least not soon, just because it was so powerful, but it was an excellent film that stuck with me.
Author: lbaldwin
The eight issues of the ISIS Magazine, Dabiq, that we read were certainly interesting. Many of the articles largely went over my head, because I do not have much knowledge about the religious terms and references that were used, but I found the articles about hostages and the sections about politicians speaking out against ISIS—titled: In the Words of Our Enemies—to be very interesting. The part with the words of the “enemy” felt almost ego-stroking, in my opinion, as if using the words of politicians speaking about the threat of ISIS to validate their own strength. I was particularly fascinated by the letter published in the magazine, reportedly from the hostage Steven Sotoloff to his mother before he was executed by ISIS (although I would not be surprised if ISIS altered or flat-out wrote the letter themselves). One part especially, in which Sotoloff writes about reminding his captors that he was a journalist and the captors respond that, like how US airstrikes do not differentiate between the armed and the unarmed, ISIS does not either, struck me. I have long been critical of Obama’s drone strikes, so I admittedly did feel somewhat swayed by ISIS’s argument—although ISIS, of course, should have let Sotoloff go.
I found the dichotomy between very violent, graphic images and picture of ISIS doing beneficial work—including building bridges, treating children with cancer, cleaning streets, establishing elderly care homes, etc.—to be quite interesting. I presume the “humanitarian” type pictures are a persuasion / propaganda tactic, but it did make me wonder about whether ISIS actually has those programs, or whether it is a total façade. I also wondered about the intended audience of Dabiq. It seems that it may have been an international, primarily Western, Muslim audience, particularly considering that the magazine was translated into several European languages. I do wonder about whether the magazine was read at all in areas occupied by ISIS, or if the magazine was purely a propaganda service used to persuade people across the world to join their cause.
Dogma was a hilarious movie that I thoroughly enjoyed, although I do not think I was well-versed enough in theology to get every joke, but I understood a lot of them, and I enjoyed it all the same. Many of the jokes were outdated, which felt a little uncomfortable, but not so much that it took away from my overall enjoyment of the movie. I was not expecting such a star-studded cast, and I wonder how I had not heard of this movie before. I was not surprised to learn that there was some controversy over its release, like Life of Brian, due to the satirical religious content, despite the lengthy disclaimer at the beginning of the movie. The disclaimer was very funny, and I wonder if it was inspired by past controversial religious satirical movies, such as Life of Brian. I also wonder if it was more shocking when it was released, in 1999, because I think there were some religious jokes that were meant to be highly outrageous that I found to be not particularly outrageous at all. Although, that may be because I was born and grew up after the film was released, so it is not improbable that I have heard reiterations of these same jokes, originally from Dogma but dispersed in popular culture.
2083: A European Declaration of Independence by Anders Behring Breivik is the culmination of many copy and pasted extremist far right texts that details Breivik’s planning for the two attacks that together claimed 77 lives. At over a thousand pages long, the manifesto is lengthy and unorganized. The use of acronyms and emoticons, in addition to the pictures of himself he added at the end, gave the manifesto an absurd, eerie feeling. Breivik is fortunate he lives in Norway, which has a humane, reform-focused prison system. I am against mass-incarceration and the death penalty, but if anyone deserves poor treatment, it is Breivik. Since a lot of what Breivik did in the preparation process was legal, I am curious about whether any laws or regulations were added or changed.
I think I had heard of the attacks in passing, but I did not know much about them, so it was interesting to learn about them in more detail. I am very curious about how, if at all, the Syrian refugee crisis, which happened a few years after Breivik’s attacks, was influenced by 2083: A European Declaration of Independence. For instance, did the attacks make Norway more inclined to accept refugees? And if so, has that made right-wing Norwegians angrier? I know that there has been some racist, xenophobic backlash in Europe after the refugee crisis, and that Denmark, a fellow Scandinavian country, did not handle the situation well.
Immigrants and refugees being misconstrued as invaders is a disgusting concept that has been pushed throughout the decade. I struggle to understand how anyone could see immigrants and refugees as invaders looking to take over a country, unless Europeans and Americans are now fearing that they will undergo what they once perpetrated. After all, it is European countries and the United States that have invaded other lands to colonize and pillage for resources with significant effects that still persist today.
Out of all the texts we have read, I think the Turner Diaries by William Luther Pierce made me feel the most disgusted and disturbed. Turner Diaries provided a disturbing look into white supremacist thought and made me feel utterly ill. The ease with which Pierce wrote about mass genocide, killing everyone on Earth except for whites, especially considering how the Holocaust was so clearly documented—although, considering Pierce was a raging anti-Semite, he probably did not believe it happened—it is revolting to me that one would write a novel in which mass genocide is a happy ending. It is a highly influential text that inspired many horrible texts, and within it there is so much distorted information that I feel angry. It also makes me angry to know that Pierce lived a long life without, from what I can tell, any repercussions for the hatred he produced and encouraged. I did find it very interesting that what set off the events of the Turner Diaries was the banning of firearms, considering gun control is such a hot topic today in the United States.
I am curious about where the idea of a race war in the United States originates. I had first heard of it in association with Charles Manson, and of course it plays a large role in the Turner Diaries, but I would not be surprised if it has been around for much longer.
When reading “Industrial Society and its Future” by Theodore Kaczynski, I actually found myself agreeing with some of his arguments. I, too, believe the industrial revolution led to significant harm, to people as individuals, a society, and, of course, to the environment. I was very interested in his concept of surrogate activities, which I found intriguing, and, I think, somewhat plausible. It seems reminiscent of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and it would not surprise me if Kaczynski’s concept was somewhat inspired by Maslow’s. I even found some of his thoughts on leftists, whom he despised, interesting, such as the idea that despite leftists defending certain oppressed groups, leftists themselves believe those groups are inferior.
I find the context around the text interesting. I know he likely made attacks for attention, but it is still strange to me that he chose to enact attacks instead of letting his writing speak for him. The process of how the FBI finally arrested him was interesting to me. The fact that Kaczynski managed to evade arrest for twenty years is commendable, and it is intriguing that he left false clues for investigators. Furthermore, it is remarkable that it is Kaczynski’s demand that “Industrial Society and its Future” be printed in a major newspaper led to his arrest, as his brother recognized the writing style and alerted authorities. Kacynski is still alive, and I wonder what he would have to say about “Industrial Society and its Future” and whether he stands by it.
Since its initial printing in 1955, Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov has sold over 50 million copies, according to National Public Radio, a reversal from the difficulty Nabokov faced to even get the novel published. Lolita was rejected from several American publishers and was ultimately published by Olympia Press, a French publishing company best known for publishing erotic fiction.1 The novel was not even published in the United States until 1958.2 Lolita is a shocking and disturbing story of pedophilia, sexual abuse, and manipulation, but it has remained a long-lasting influence on our culture even nearly 65 years later.
Nabokov, a Russian-born American author, had previously written works with similar themes to Lolita, which indicates that Lolita is likely the culmination of his ideas and was a long-time coming. Nabokov had initially planned on publishing Lolita under a pseudonym, which suggests that he knew the controversy it would provoke, although the pseudonym would just have been an anagram of his name, so it seems that he did not care to completely distance himself from it.3 In the end, Nabokov agreed to publish it under his own name.
Despite being originally published in France, Lolita was banned in France from 1956 to 1958. Lolita was also banned in the United Kingdom, Australia, Burma (today, Myanmar), Belgium, and Austria, in addition to some places in the United States, including the Cincinnati Public Library.4 Lolita follows a pedophile called Humbert Humbert, a middle-aged man obsessed with girls between the age of eight and fourteen. He dehumanizes the young girls he is attracted to by calling them “nymphets” and projecting a sense of sexuality onto them. Pedophilia, the sexual attraction to children, is disgusting and disturbing, so it is no wonder that the book became instantly controversial and was banned in many countries. However, perhaps in part due to the controversy surrounding the novel, it became a best seller and is still considered a literary classic today.
The plot of Lolita goes as follows: Humbert marries Lolita’s mother, Charlotte, to stay closer to Lolita—a move that is reminiscent of Woody Allen’s marriage to his former stepdaughter—and takes in Lolita following her mother’s death. They travel across the United States while engaging in a sexual relationship, eventually settling in Beardsley, before Lolita was kidnapped. Humbert tracks down the kidnapper and murders him, which leads to his imprisonment.
Lolita features a frame narrative and an unreliable narrator. In the foreword, a fictional psychologist, John Ray Jr., writes that the Confessions of a White Widowed Male, which constructs the bulk of the novel Lolita, was written by a man given the alias Humbert Humbert while in prison, whose lawyer gave it to Ray to publish after Humbert’s death. Throughout the novel, readers do not get to know Lolita’s thoughts or feelings. Readers only know of how Humbert interprets Lolita’s words and actions, but he is a pedophile attempting to justify his own actions. Humbert projects his feelings and desires onto Lolita, and readers can only grasp a sense of what Lolita may be feeling as she is sexually abused by her stepfather while they travel across the country together after her mother’s death, with mentions of how she “sobs in the night—every night, every night.”5
More disturbing than the novel Lolita itself is how it has been embraced and ingrained in popular culture today, with the assistance of the 1962 film Lolita, which cemented the imagery and iconography of Lolita. Lolita references are rampant throughout popular culture. Female pop stars, including Katy Perry and Lana Del Rey, the latter of whom has even released a song titled “Lolita,” frequently reference Lolita in song lyrics and imagery. The Police reference Nabokov in the song “Don’t Stand So Close to Me,” which is about a teacher and a schoolgirl. The film Manhattan (1979), written and directed by the aforementioned Woody Allen, who also allegedly molested his daughter when she was seven, depicts a relationship between a middle-aged man and a seventeen-year-old girl and references Nabokov by name.
Rather than maintaining the focus on Humbert, the protagonist of Lolita, a pedophile who rapes and sexually abuses his stepdaughter, society has narrowed in on Lolita, portraying her as Humbert viewed her—an instigating, sexually promiscuous, enticing girl—instead of a child victim sexually abused by her stepfather who cried every night. Viewing the victim as the perpetrator sees her certainly has some dangerous, concerning implications for our society. Even Vanity Fair’s review of Lolita, which is quoted on the back of Random House Vintage International’s 50th Anniversary Edition of the novel, perpetuates Lolita as a romance novel, rather than an abuse novel, referring to it as “the only convincing love story of our century.”
Although Lolita does not condone pedophilia, popular culture has taken off with its themes and imagery, exacerbated by the 1962 film of the same name, which, due to censorship restrictions, featured a slightly older Lolita (fourteen instead of twelve) and downplayed Humbert’s pedophilia and sexual abuse. The imagery and iconography from the film—particularly the heart-shaped sunglasses and lollipop6—have contributed considerably to the treatment of Lolita—or what people perceive Lolita to be—in the modern day.
The novel remains controversial, especially after the Me Too movement, which is a movement against sexual assault and harassment, but many still regard Lolita as a romantic story of forbidden love, bringing about positive Lolita references even from female artists. The relationship between Lolita and Humbert, if it could even be called that, is romanticized in popular culture. Humbert is clearly a cruel, selfish, and abusive man in the novel, but in popular culture, people focus on the character of Lolita—hardly on Humbert at all—and disregard Nabokov’s writing to continue the perception of Lolita as an attractive bad girl who lusts after older men. The name Lolita itself has become a noun recognized by dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary, meaning a sexually precocious young girl.
Unlike many controversial, incendiary texts, Lolita is considered a literary classic, placing the novel in an interesting position in which reading it could be encouraged or forbidden. The controversy around Lolita remains even over half a century later, and will likely remain in the foreseeable future, due its subject matter and the misconstrued characterization of Lolita throughout popular culture. Lolita is not an easy read, because readers are in the head of a pedophile, and Nabokov does not hesitate to write Humbert’s repulsive thoughts, portraying him as a selfish, murderous pedophile. However, Lolita is a well-written novel, and if it takes reading Lolita for people to finally understand the true character of Lolita and the nature of the novel, then it should be read more widely and deeply.
Lolita’s literary merit and significant influence in popular culture cannot be denied. Lolita has transcended Nabokov’s novel and become a wildly misunderstood character transformed from a child victimized by her stepfather to a sexual icon of sorts, representing a sexualized, lustful, naughty young girl. By no means should Lolita ever be banned, but it needs to be reconsidered—and ideally, reread—by the world at large to recognize the depth of Nabokov’s writing and bring the character of Lolita the justice she deserves.
Bibliography
Arons, Rachel. “Designing ‘Lolita.’” The New Yorker, 2013, https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/designing-lolita (accessed October 25, 2019).
Boyd, Brian. Vladimir Nabokov: The American Years. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990.
McGrath, Charles. “50 Years on, ‘Lolita’ Still Has Power to Unnerve.” The New York Times, 2005, https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/24/books/50-years-on-lolita-still-has-power-to-unnerve.html (accessed October 25, 2019).
Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita. New York, NY: Random House Inc., 1997.
I am not a fan of magical realism, but I did find Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie to be an interesting read. I know the general basics of Islam, so I got the gist of some of the parallels and mockery, but I did not grasp all of it, and I did not comprehend its scale. As a novel, I did enjoy Satanic Verses somewhat, although I think I would have been more intrigued if I had understood all the references and if I enjoyed magical realism.
Part of me is disturbed and angered by Rushdie’s provocation. He likely did not foresee the extent to the backlash, but still, he wrote Satanic Verses with the intent to provoke, and it resulted in the deaths of many. To me, Rushdie seems arrogant, cocky, and irresponsible; however, I do recognize that his writing should be protected, and he was not behind the resulting attacks. Freedom of speech and freedom of press are incredibly important, and so Rushdie’s writing should be protected, even if it is distasteful and disrespectful. I wonder whether Khomeini realized that by issuing a fatwa against Rushdie, he brought more attention onto Satanic Verses, leading to increased controversy and, likely, contributing to its commercial success. A cynical part of me wonders if part of the reason he wrote a provoking book was just ot receive attention and get his name and writing out to the general public via controvery. I also wonder whether Satanic Verses would have been received differently if it had been written by an author who was not raised Muslim, and whether that would have made the backlash more minute or more intense. I am also curious about Rushdie’s other writings. Has he written anything just as successful or more successful as Satanic Verses, or will all his books always be dwarfed by the phenomenon that occurred around Satanic Verses?
I quite enjoyed the SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas because I found it funny, almost satirical, but knowing that Solanas wrote it seriously makes it much more alarming. The SCUM Manifesto was also transphobic and used various slurs, further restraining my objective enjoyment of the text. I found the section on laboratory reproduction, which was about selectively choosing not to reproduce males because they are “like disease” and it would also be immoral to deliberately reproduce blind people—comparing men to disabilities—interesting, although very problematic. It has some intriguing modern implication, especially as today gene-editing technology—particularly with CRISPR—is so relevant and gene-editing in general is much more possible today than it was at the time the manifesto was written.
While reading the manifesto, I did feel fairly concerned for Solanas, and even more so after reading about the context around it, such as Solanas shooting Andy Warhol. It seems to me that she was not in a great mental state. It is my understand that much of the attention that this manifesto received was because of the attack, which makes sense. I find it interesting that some feminists actually defended it, considering, in my opinion, it is very clearly not a feminist text; it does not advocate for equality. Feminism—at least, how it is viewed today—is about achieving equality, whereas the SCUM Manifesto argues that men are genetically inferior. I am curious about how each wave of feminism differed, and how each wave would respond to this manifesto.
Monty Python’s Life of Brian was certainly an entertaining watch. I had seen clips of the movie—particularly the grammar and what Romans provide scenes, since I took Latin—before, but I had never seen the movie in its entirety. I did enjoy it, but I can understand why it was banned. In addition to religious jokes, Life of Brian had nudity, swearing, and sexual jokes. There is no wonder it was a controversial film and was banned in many countries; however, I personally did not think it was particularly offensive. If Life of Brian were released today, I wonder if the level of outrage and controversy would be the same as in 1979, when it was originally released. Many Monty Python films are considered classics now, so clearly the reputation of their work was not significantly harmed by the controversy, and I wonder whether the controversy actually helped promote their movies.
Religion is a sensitive topic, so it is interesting to me that they chose to tackle it, even knowing that they would have to tread very carefully if they wanted to avoid offending people. Or maybe they chose the topic because it would likely offend people. Regardless, they managed to create a classic, and it is not even considerably offensive. I wonder if some of the people up in arms over Life of Brian had ever actually watched it.
Powell’s Anarchist Cookbook was an entertaining read, although much of it is inaccurate or outdated. I was particularly interested in reading this text because of its controversial history, including its alleged use in the Oklahoma City Bombing. I thought that the prefatory note, forward, introduction, and postscript were all interesting, especially in providing context for the political and social state in which the text was written and the goals of the text. I only skimmed through the “recipes,” but I am not a good cook or chemist, but the instructions did seem pretty clearly written out. I found the drawings and diagrams quite helpful in understanding the processes. I enjoyed reading the quotations before each chapter, and how they were used to support the content. I do wonder whether it would be more difficult to create some of the bombs today, as opposed to when it was written, given that some materials are now more closely tracked. Some sections, like the bugging section, are mostly just irrelevant in 2019, since technology has changed so much. I was not expecting there to be an entire section on drugs, although I suppose it makes sense, given the time period and that it was a counter-cultural movement. I thought the line “there will be no more black kids in jail on trumped up charges” (31), referring to the free use of drugs in the “new society” was especially interesting, given what we now know about the War on Drugs and how it specifically targeted “the anti-war left and black people” to “disrupt” the communities, according to Nixon’s former domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman. I also found the information about what to do if arrested interesting, and I think that sort of information is pretty vital for any protesting group. Knowing your rights and how to best conduct yourself if arrested is very important, although, of course, in this instance the information is coming from a text from 1971 that contains instructions on how to conduct bombs, so it probably isn’t the best place to get this information, nor the most accurate. Still, I do think it is important to know, especially if you plan on protesting.
On a more personal note, I was curious about anarchism, since there has been a considerable anarchist group in my hometown for years. They have, to my knowledge, had a commune, occupied a lot intended to be the location for a new CVS, and held workshops, including a book fair, as well as contributing to the Really Really Free Market, which is frequently held in my hometown. Years later, the lot is still empty, so perhaps the anarchists won. I have always wondered about their existence in my hometown, and learning about anarchy and reading The Anarchist Cookbook has actually helped me understand why. In particular, learning that anarchism is about abolishing private property and getting rid of economic exploitation, including the state, and letting people organize themselves, gave me a greater understanding of their existence in my community.
Although it was not exactly a fun experience, attending the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum was an interesting, insightful way to spend a Saturday. The permanent, chronological exhibit was very informative and impactful, and the additional two exhibits I toured, the American Witnesses exhibit and the Americans and the Holocaust exhibit, were also well done. Some of the smallest artifacts in the permanent exhibit ended up hitting me the hardest, like the drawings from children during the Holocaust. It is hard to grasp the scale of the Holocaust, but the hallways filled with names of people who died and historically Jewish towns that lost much of their population, as well as the piles of shoes and hair, helped to capture it. The color video footage of the liberation of concentration camps in the American Witnesses exhibit also hit me pretty hard. I think seeing actual videos, particularly videos in color, makes it easier to envision the cruelty in a way we can understand. To me, it feels like there can be a distance in some black and white still images that is not there in color videos. I took journalism in high school, so I’m a bit of a nerd for the news, so I was interested in reading what American newspapers and magazines reported on about the Holocaust, and how they reported it, in the Americans and the Holocaust exhibit. The survivor speaker at the end of our visit was wonderful and I enjoyed listening to her stories.
Throughout the exhibits, I think I picked up on things I normally would not have because of the anti-Semitic texts we read for class and our discussions on them. Hitler’s economic boycott against Jews in Germany makes more sense after having read “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” and Mein Kampf, as do the Nazi anti-intellectual book burnings and the complex blood purity charts.
“The Fake Threat of Jewish Communism” by Christopher
Browning provides good, relevant information about the false connection between
Judaism and Communism. It was interesting to read this article after starting Mein Kampf, because it put Adolf Hitler’s
association of Jews with socialism into context. I had never heard of the
connection between Judaism and Communism until taking this class, so I was very
interested in the history of Judeo-Bolshevism, including how it arose, its
impact on the world and World War II, and its effects today, so I enjoyed
reading the article. Since it was written just this year, the article mentions
two fairly recent events, the white supremacists in Charlottesville and the
2018 law in Poland forbidding attributing Nazi crimes to Poles. The white
supremacists were explicitly anti-Semitic, and the Polish law, which suggests a
possible denial of the events of the Holocaust.
I was interested by the impact of Judeo-Bolshevism on Eastern Europe, since Eastern Europe was so heavily affected by Communism, but it was still disappointing to read about how recent those effects have been, including post-Soviet Union Eastern Europeans viewing themselves as the victims of Communism and Jews as benefiting from it. Learning about Romania directly killing 300,000 Jews was an unpleasant surprise to see briefly mentioned in the article, as well. I am curious about A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism by Paul Hanebrink, the book that the article responds to. I was simultaneously intrigued by and terrified by the proposal that modern day “Islamic terror” in Europe, as Muslim immigrants move to the West and are viewed as disloyal and dangerous, could be the new Judeo-Bolshevism. I hope Browning is incorrect in his suggestion, but after reading “ The Fake Threat of Jewish Communism, ” I can certainly see similarities, and I am concerned as to whether it will come to actualization.
So far, Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf is, in a word, boring. Since it is a text that has been banned widely and has influenced many, I expected it to at least be compelling, but I found the writing dry and uninteresting. Maybe it is because I find his prose so dull, but I struggled to follow some of Hitler’s writing, particularly the long, unreliable, historical parts with Joseph II and the Hapsburgs. I did not get nearly as far into the book as I had wanted to, but I did get several chapters in, and it was interesting to read about his—incorrect—connection between Marxism and Judaism. I was also interested by how Christianity was used as a justification for anti-Semitism, like when Hitler wrote, “by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” (65), though he did not elaborate much.
Mein Kampf reads to me as a strange mix of autobiography and propaganda. He begins the book with describing his childhood, then relates it to his feelings about the state of Austria and Germans within Austria. He describes moving to Vienna as a young man, then goes on a rant about poverty, socialism, Marxism, democracy, and Jews, as well as writing about various historical figures. As a reader, I wish he had just chosen one or the other, but I suppose it is effective to slip in political beliefs among personal stories. I also found his abundant use of rhetorical questions on page 80 an interesting choice. Personally, I think that part would have been more effective as oration than written word.
I do wonder how the book was initially received around the world. Of course, anti-Semitism was rampant at the time, so it would not surprise me if people read about Hitler’s explicit hatred and fearmongering towards Jews and did not take action. I did a little bit of research and found out that it had been translated into 11 languages and had sold 5.2 million copies by 1939, so it is not like no one knew about his political agenda.
Brian Keeley describes the harmful nature of conspiracy theories in his article “Of Conspiracy Articles,” naming the key parts of conspiracy theories, their attractiveness, their flaws, and their danger. A few things stuck out to me: that evidence against conspiracy theories are construed as support for their theories, and the skepticism of reliable institutions brought out by conspiracy theories. If a conspiracy theory argues that an institution is trying to cover something up, denials—even with evidence—will likely not be accepted by those who have read the conspiracy, because it will just seem like another cover up. That is an interesting thought to me, because it begs the question about how to best combat the spread of conspiracy theories when the theorists will not accept facts and reality. Skepticism in reliable industries can be very dangerous. Keeley points out that conspiracies reveal how much we rely on these institutions’ information, which is certainly interesting, but skepticism in proven science and reliable, trustworthy institutions is incredibly dangerous. For me, anti-vaccination conspiracies and climate change deniers come to mind, both of which are significant threats to the world today. In January, the World Health Organization named vaccination hesitancy as one of the largest global health threats of 2019, and climate change deniers have prevented political action to prevent global warming for years.
I also find it interesting that though this article is ten years old, it is still applicable to the state of conspiracies today. With the internet, conspiracies are more accessible and attractive than ever before, and accessing errant data is even easier. I am particularly concerned about young teenagers—especially middle schoolers, who I am guessing are less likely to read critically—gaining access to dangerous, hateful conspiracies. I have read many articles over the past few years about young, white, male teenagers becoming white supremacists and conspiracy theorists after watching hateful videos and participating in online forums, so I am genuinely concerned about what children can access online. I am against censorship, but I do think dangerous content should not be so accessible.
The
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion contains a lengthy,
elaborate plan explaining how Jews will secretly take over the world and
destroy liberty and democracy. I had heard a little about this conspiracy before,
but it did not prepare me for just how ridiculous, extensive, and absurd the conspiracy
would be. I find it difficult to understand how anyone could possibly believe
it, but I suppose fearmongering is effective, and the protocols clearly had a
big effect on the world and the rise of anti-Semitism in the 20th
century. The protocols have been condemned as a hoax as early as 1921, from
what I can find, so it is interesting to me that the protocols were still
impactful for decades afterward and have continued to persist even now, in some
places
I did find the format of
the protocols interesting. Though tedious to read, and often very repetitive,
the plan was laid out in a simple, easy to follow way. Also, anti-Semitic
conspiracy aside, it was somewhat interesting to read about possible methods
for infiltrating governments and taking over in a secret manner. If it had not
been a hateful, anti-Semitic conspiracy, I think it could have made an
interesting fictional novel. Some parts did remind me of 1984, with taking over the press, having the people spy on each
other, and changing the education system, among many others, though all those
go concurrently with any authoritarian government. Truthfully, much of the
economics in the protocols lost me, though I think I understood the gist of it.
In this conspiracy, infiltration happens through the economy, so it makes sense
that the protocols would go into detail about the economy, but it went a lot
further into the specifics than I had expected, including how internal and
external loans would work in their authoritarian government.