Author: Marina

The Turner Diaries is an antisemitic and racist novel written in 1978 by William Luther Pierce that portrays a white nationalist group, called The Organization, taking over society through a world war against Jews and non-white individuals. Not only does the text depict racist and antisemitic themes, but it has been used by individuals like the Oklahoma City bomber to incite violence in order to further white nationalism. The author, Pierce, got a bachelor’s in physics at Rice University before attaining his doctorate at the University of Colorado Boulder. He became an assistant professor at Oregon State University for three years before becoming a senior researcher and moving to Washington D.C. He later met George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi Party, which likely influenced Pierce’s neo-Nazi beliefs, leading him to become the co-founder of the National Youth Alliance in 1974. Once the group split, Pierce founded National Alliance and led the organization for 30 years.

As an adult, Pierce wasn’t particularly interested in politics until his peers claimed the bias against segregationists (people who believe in segregation, which Pierce did) was due to Jews. This led Pierce to blame the Jews for the civil rights movement and the protests against the Vietnam War. At some point in his Middle Ages, Pierce opened a gun sales business which sold machine guns but was shot down due to gun control legislation. I found this interesting as guns play a huge part in the text itself because the story starts with the gun raids ordered by the government, which Turner and his neighbors heavily oppose. The text is written in a diary format which follows the main character, Earl Turner, who is very passionate about the organization and not falling victim to “race traitors”–other white people that are in agreement with equality in society. We see Turner become a member of the organization and he talks about his outings like bombing an FBI building and looting convenience stores. Turner is against the System because non-whites have positions of power, and he believes white people are superior to any other race. The craziest part of the story was the ‘Day of the Rope’ where the organization executed every non-white or white person that supported the System by hanging them. The story continues with the main character agreeing to a suicide mission to bomb the Pentagon, and the story ends when Turner dies. The diary format of the text was very odd to read because I couldn’t tell if Pierce chose to do this to be entertaining and capture the audience’s attention, or if it was more persuasive to make the reader think these events actually had historical significance. I hope most people can agree that this text was absurd because no race is better than another and division, racism, and antisemitism have no place in our society.

Industrial Society and its Future, also known as the Unabomber Manifesto, was written in 1995 by Ted Kaczynski who led a 17-year bombing spree via mail. The manifesto was printed in The Washington Post after Kaczynski offered to end the bombing spree if his essay was published, and the printing led to Kaczynski’s brother and his brother’s wife identifying Kaczynski as the Unabomber. As for the text itself, the manifesto is a 35,000-word essay advocating for “a revolution against the industrial system” as Kaczynski wrote. He makes it incredibly clear that he has no interest in a political revolution, simply a revolution against technology, which Kaczynski believes is the problem with modern society. Kaczynski’s manifesto isn’t anything of absurdity, in fact, it’s entirely educational if you don’t like the industrial system and are easily influenced. I think that fact is what stood out to me the most because Kaczynski makes himself relatable and establishes a common enemy (the industrial system), he doesn’t advocate for violence, and he isn’t manic, which makes him come off like an average guy that knows a little too much about technology. Had Kaczynski written/published his novel before the bombing spree, I think we would have had a lot more violence on our hands. For someone vulnerable and disadvantaged by the industrial system, it would’ve been easy to be indoctrinated into Kaczynski’s revolutionary group. I even found myself agreeing with some of his arguments, like his power process theory and the belief that human beings need goals. I definitely agree that failure to create goals can lead to negative feelings or boredom, so he was onto something there. He even wrote, “The leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained, his need for the power process leads him to always pursue a new goal.” Now, one would think that would be a good thing; the leftist achieves a goal and continues finding new goals to reach and new problems to solve, but alas, Kaczynski disagrees. In fact, he attacks the left often for being “anti-individualistic”. He also claims to be anti-leftist because leftism is focused on unity and collectivism which is only possible if we have technology, which of course is his worst enemy. Needless to say, Kaczynski was a messed-up guy who deserves nothing more than a prison cell! I wonder what he would’ve thought about our technology now that AI is booming and our society is becoming even more reliant on the industrial system… I think the scariest part of this text is that Kaczynski was actively killing people, yet he seems entirely normal in his manifesto, other than his disdain for the left.

The Anarchist Cookbook was a manual of sorts published in 1971 by William Powell–an American author who actually wrote the book as a teenager. Powell wrote the manual in 1969 during the Vietnam war (which spanned from 1955-1975) after being drafted into the military at age 19 in 1968; he was angry over the Vietnam war draft and wrote the manual for educational purposes. Interestingly, Powell has since attempted to distance himself from the book, even requesting its discontinuation due to the dangerous themes in the manual. “The central idea to the book was that violence is an acceptable means to bring about political change”, Powell wrote in an author’s note to attempt to dissuade readers from misinterpreting the manual and finding controversy in the text itself. As for the manual itself, it essentially provides “recipes” and instructions for just about anything illegal, the majority of the instructions/recipes being for weapons and drugs. This text felt like a science textbook and a recipe book combined. The illustrations were especially fun with labels for every single ingredient, just in case you get confused. I was honestly more impressed that this author knew the legality and how to obtain each of these drugs and weaponry and such, that I didn’t even have time to feel shocked at the contents of the text. Personally, I believe Powell was aiming to include some satirical components in the text because it is very straightforward about Powell’s violence and disregard for the legality of these drugs and explosives, which makes me think that he wanted to have that shock factor, similar to A Modest Proposal. Obviously, I am not some extreme revolutionary guy that’s going to read this text and feel inspired to go use these warfare tactics and seek out these weapons, so I feel there’s some duality within the controversy of the text; where some may see it as a dangerous manual to spark violence, others see it as an encouragement for individualism and less government control. I can imagine that the military draft during the Vietnam war led Powell to feel a loss of control with his whole future being taken from him after being drafted, and that anger definitely motivated the writing of this text.

The S.C.U.M Manifesto (Society for cutting up men) was written in 1967 by Valerie Solanas, a feminist author widely known for killing Andy Warhol. The text is written from a misandrist point of view that critiques our current patriarchy, and Solanas proposes the S.C.U.M to overthrow our current male dominated society in order to give women more power and rid the world of men, which according to Solanas, are everything wrong with our society. It is thought that the S.C.U.M Manifesto is comprised of satirical components rather than a straight-forward extremist plan due to the text’s underlying “dark humor” that strives to ridicule some of the stereotypes or virtues that are present in our society. Whether or not this text is a satire isn’t fully known, but I believe the text’s possible satirical content is what makes it so dangerous. Each point that Solanas makes is something that she claims men are responsible for, and each one is backed with some sort of evidence (which could be easily believed by vulnerable people) the first few being war, politeness and dignity, money and marriage, and fatherhood and mental illness. Solanas’ argument is ultimately that men are an incomplete female because the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, Solanas argues that “to be male is to be deficient…males are emotional cripples.” She goes on to say that men are incapable of being empathetic and men created almost every negative feeling or concept in our society, all because he secretly wants to be a woman. This desire makes him insecure, and the man condemns every emotion that he has, claiming that they belong to women instead, according to the S.C.U.M Manifesto. Solanas also brings up fair points about men often considering women passive, insecure, and dependent, when a good amount of the time, men actually inhibit these traits and project their insecurities onto the women around them. In terms of satirical content, I believe that Solanas was aiming to point out how the patriarchy has degraded women for years, like in the 120 Days of Sodom, and in a way, Solanas sort of gave the same energy back by calling out men in a dark and heinous way. I do also believe that Solanas took her argument too far by proposing an eradication of men from society entirely, because it’s hypocritical of her criticisms towards the patriarchy. However, if Solanas wasn’t writing a satire and she fully believed her proposal and evidence, she is unrepresentative of other feminist movements and she has incredibly odd ideas about gender.

Marquis de Sade was a French writer and nobleman, born in the 1740s, who sought out pleasure through control and domination in any way possible; he is often referred to as “the father of sadism” due to his extreme inflictions of pain during sexual acts, which are reflected in his writings. His book, The 120 Days of Sodom, was written in 1785 and became popularized in the 20th century due to its controversy. The novel displays Sade’s cruel desires to force women and children to submit to men and void them of any control over any part of their lives and autonomy, including religion, bodily functions, eating, and sleeping. Sade also faced imprisonment numerous different times throughout his lifetime for crimes like blasphemy, sexual deviance, and violence; all of his imprisonments combined to about 29 years. This paper will analyze and seek to use these imprisonments as possible causes for Sade’s obsession with absolute power over others. In his writings, Sade expressed his disregard for human life through his violent tendencies towards women and young children and this paper will describe how Sade’s inhumanity was derived from his personal experience with being treated with little regard for his humanity throughout his prison sentence. I will use Sade’s criminal history, letters that Sade wrote his wife during his time in prison, a biography detailing Sade’s personality before and after imprisonment, and psychology journal articles that analyze prison’s effect on Sade’s mind and its influence on his violent tendencies which were rooted in the absence of control. Thus, this paper will strive to determine whether incarcerated individuals develop an “eye for an eye” ideology after being treated cruelly in prison, and whether this is a confirmed cycle in penitentiary institutions. If so, this paper will discuss rehabilitative practices that governments can incorporate to avoid the corruption of inmates throughout prison sentences which can lead to an obsession with domination and absolute power. This paper will also strive to determine if Sade displayed vulnerabilities that would have made him more susceptible to feel a loss of control in prison that other individuals during the time didn’t experience, which could’ve guided Sade to spend his life searching for the power and freedom that was taken from him during those 29 years.

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the class visit to the Holocaust Museum, though I have visited before, so I’ll be writing my reflections on about the museum visit I went on in 2023. Admittedly, prior to the visit, I was dreading; I would consider myself a sensitive person and I was honestly scared that I was going to start crying in front of my classmates because of how depressing the Holocaust was (luckily, I didn’t). The Holocaust Museum is one of those places that forces you to sit with the uncomfortableness of history–it was an incredibly interesting museum, but it was also undoubtably sad to walk through.

The mountain of suitcases that lined the wall and piled up in one area of the museum was particularly interesting to me. The suitcases were taken from Jewish individuals during the Holocaust while Germans were forcing them into concentration camps. Each suitcase included all of their personal items and their names written on the outside. Next to the exhibit was a quote, written by Esther Glina Montagner, that stuck out to me, “Ponder this: The last time you write your name is on a suitcase and is piled upon a stack of other suitcases, you have no way to know that what lies ahead is your dead body being stacked upon other dead bodies as if there was no difference between the two. If you are selected to live, it is the last time you have a name.” Every quote in the museum (especially this one by Montagner) really paints the perspective of how Jewish people and other minorities were stripped of every single right until their humanity was taken from them throughout the Holocaust. I also found the sculptures of people that depicted different “scenes” of what the Holocaust was like to be interesting because it added imagery to show what life was really like.

Overall, the Holocaust Museum was a really eye-opening experience, and I think every individual should visit at least once. Generally, I don’t care for museums much, but this one is very interactive and showcases the information incredibly well; the museum also has a gift shop area where I saw a poster with a quote by Dante that really stuck out to me. “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” – Dante. I believe this quote was incredibly relevant then, and now.

Mein Kampf was a manifesto written in 1924 by Adolf Hitler about his early years that shaped him, his political ideals, and a detailed explanation of his belief that Jewish individuals were the reason why the German Empire collapsed. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while he was imprisoned at Landsberg am Lech for a failed political coupe in 1923 by the National Socialist party (Nazi party) that Hitler led. Hitler was born on April 20, 1889, and attended numerous different schools up until age fifteen where he eventually quit his studies due to his laziness and apathy towards school. However, one of his teachers, Dr. Potsch, was said to have inspired Hitler’s interest in history and is believed to have influenced German Nationalism in him. In 1909, after financial struggles, Hitler moved into a working man’s hostel where his political education is said to have begun. He began to turn against the Habsburg Empire and social democracy; shortly after he also attended the Austrian parliament (Reichsrat) which formed his views of politics after observing the parliament. Through the years, Hitler explored political parties, and it is believed that the Christian Social Party interested Hitler the most. It’s leader, Karl Weger, targeted large-scale capitalists and trade unionists which resonated with Hitler as he believed the Jewish capitalist and the Jewish socialist were in cahoots with each other to “denationalize” the Germans. Hitler’s own party went from the German Labour Party to the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, to, eventually, the Nazi Party, all based against Jewish capitalism. Hitler used Mein Kampf as a way to spread his Nazi propaganda, essentially fighting back against his imprisonment in order to get attention again. Mein Kampf did influence antisemitism throughout Germany (clearly shown through the Holocaust); however, many of Hitler’s supporters didn’t actually read the book, instead using the sole existence of the manifesto as proof that their leader was intelligent and had strong political beliefs.

Mein Kampf was published in two volumes, one in 1925, and one in 1927, eventually selling over 5 million by 1939–the same year that WWII began.

In the introduction, the translator listed the two types of people that would want Mein Kampf banned: Jews that fear that others will be interested in this ideology if they read it, and individuals that want to suppress the book in order to suppress their own “advocacy” for the same ideals. I thought this was really interesting because in many cases, censorship or suppression of certain literature or ideas is done because we are afraid to face the history behind many of these books or the emotions it will evoke, such as Mein Kampf.

Unsurprisingly enough, Hitler lied a lot in his book and most of his autobiographical passages are unreliable, according to the introduction of the current Mein Kampf edition. It is honestly expected that Hitler would have to lie in his own manifesto to gain more attention.

Chapter 9

The ninth chapter of Mein Kampf, titled “The German Labour Party”, discusses Hitler’s attendance of the first meeting of the German Labour Party in 1919 and his interest in joining the political party, which would later become the Nazi party. Hitler was ordered by his superior officer of the Army to go to the event, investigate its political nature, and report on his findings. Hitler wrote about his unimpressed feelings throughout the lecture of Gottfried Feder, the founder of this new party. He wrote that numerous societies or parties, like the German Labour Party, were being formed as a result of dissatisfaction with the current government or policies; though, the societies had no lasting impression due to the founder’s lack of knowledge on creating change. In contrast, Hitler believed he had what it took to lead a group or movement. After the meeting ended, Feder opened the meeting up to discussion or input from other members, Hitler began speaking about his input on the conversation which captured the attention of the onlookers who seemed interested in Hitler’s opinions. Hitler decided to attend another meeting of the German Labour Party and this time, he felt a strong confliction between joining the party and not joining. He mentioned the idea that this party could serve as a way to reach national resurgence, and he reflected on his qualifications (or lack thereof) to join/lead this party. Hitler was unknown at the time, he was poor, and he had odd education. Nonetheless, he ultimately decided to join the party, claiming it was “the most fateful decision” of his life.

This chapter described the beginning of Hitler’s involvement and leadership in political affairs, especially since the German Labour Party would later become the Nazi party which laid the groundwork for Hitler’s ideology.

Chapter 10

The tenth chapter is titled, “The Collapse of the Second Reich” and is slightly contrasted to the previous chapter. While the ninth chapter detailed a major event in Hitler’s life, the tenth chapter discusses the German Empire instead, and his thoughts behind the collapse of the Second Reich. For a good portion of the chapter, Hitler places doubt on the idea that the military defeat was the cause of the German Empire collapses because he believes that Germans would have felt regret and fury against the enemy if a military defeat was the cause of the fall. Additionally, Germans would have used that to feel inspired instead of defeated and losing faith in the Reich, according to Hitler. He says the collapse was not due to the enemy but insiders in the nation itself and blames Jews and Marxists. Later, he also talks about how the Treaty of Versailles was foolish to accept because it embarrassed Germany and forced them to pay reparations which caused national debt. Overall, Hitler blames the Jews and racial impurity for the collapse of the German Empire, even quoting someone he considers “one of the greatest thinkers of all time” who said that Jews were “the great master of lies”. Which essentially refers to his belief that the Jews were behind the collapse and did it out of personal gain.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a fabricated text published in 1903 in Russia which detailed a Jewish plan to control the rest of society and convert all people to Judaism. The text was originally taken from a political satire called Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, written by Maurice Joly in 1864, which outlined authoritarianism and sought to attack the regime of Napoleon the third. Though Joly’s text made no mention of Jews, the satire would later be used by journalist and initial publisher of the protocols, Pavel Krushevan, who plagiarized and adapted the protocols to be the text we know today: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Protocols became a sensation following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, which occurred during WW1. Part of the reason that the protocols gained traction was due to the small truth that some Jews did join the Bolshevik Revolution due to the equality it promised; many Russian Nationalists that supported the Monarchy believed that Jews were “fufilling the prophecy” of the Protocols through Bolshevism. Many began to believe in the charge of Jewish or Judeo Bolshevism–a conspiracy theory that suggested the Russian Revolution of 1917 was orchestrated by the Jews and that they were controlling the Soviet Union. This spurred antisemitism on as many Russians fell farther into the rabbit hole that Jews were attempting to undermine Russia and western civilizations with communism.

In April of 1903, just before the publication of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a pogrom (massacre of an ethnic group) known as the Kishinev Program, an anti-Jewish riot, occurred which left 49 Jews killed, 500 injured, and 1,500 Jewish homes and businesses destroyed. A young boy named Mikhail Rybachenko was killed which led to the conspiracy that Jewish people killed him and used his blood for a ritual called a blood libel. It is likely that the Kishinev Program led Krushevan to publish the Protocols in an attempt to further antisemitism and cause another attack on the Jewish.

The text was spread throughout America by a minister in 1919 that lived in St. Petersburg but fled the revolution. He claimed that the Jews were involved in the revolution and only 16 members were actually Russians, leading the congress to express worry of a Bolshevik Revolution in America. Some Americans expressed fear and some also turned to antisemitism.

The Protocols were translated into a number of languages even after they were debunked including Arabic, Japanese, German, French, English, and other European languages.

The Protocols have been used consistently throughout history to encourage antisemitism, and they have been incredibly harmful towards the Jewish, with Hitler even citing it in his own manifesto, Mein Kampf.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a text that was published in Imperial Russia in 1903. The text goes through the workings of a secret Jewish plot towards world domination, though the text was fabricated and played a role in antisemitism and conspiracy around the Jews.

This text was certainly one of the easier ones to read and much less horrific than our last forbidden text–Marquis De Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom. Nonetheless, I did find myself finding many similarities between De Sade’s main four villains and the ‘Elders’ of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I found it interesting that both texts mention that it is essentially okay to commit a crime or act immorally if it serves oneself or supports one’s cause. The ‘Elders’ are also shown as selfish and power hungry with no regard for others, just as the four characters in De Sade’s novel are illustrated. Although, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was created to assert the idea that a Jewish society of some kind was creating a plot to overthrow the Christian government, (whereas 120 Days of Sodom was a sadist manifesto). The Protocols in the text are created around the principle of violence, and citizens are ordered to be cunning and hypocritic, which makes the text seem like a huge ploy to convert Christians to Judaism. Throughout the text, the ‘Elders’ discuss equality, which is essentially overrated, according to them. The ‘Elders’ also speak about a government “based on religion and fear of God” which could then create submission. Submission and violence are both common themes in this text whereas liberty and freedom are condemned.

The text also tells that Jews are “the chosen people of God” which would’ve made a lot of Christians angry at the time. Considering that Russia was a Christian Empire and there were already conflicts and tensions between Jews and Christians in 1903, this text would’ve made antisemitism even more accepted. In other words, it is doubtable that individuals would’ve been skeptical of this text as it gave an easy way to be openly antisemitic.

I can definitely see why this text was harmful towards Jewish individuals, but I don’t quite understand why it is forbidden. Hiding the text won’t make the history of it disappear, it’ll just make it easier to repeat by refusing to teach why it was wrong. Overall, this text reminds me of current day deepfakes, which make it even easier to impersonate someone else.

During the writing of the 120 Days of Sodom, Marquis de Sade was imprisoned in Bastille for drugging women during an orgy, almost leading to a young woman’s death. He wrote the novel in 37 days in 1785 during his time in the Bastille, yet it’s believed the novel was never finished. Sade engaged in many sexually deviant acts that are described in the book including sodomy, which could mean that he wrote this novel as a manifesto of sorts or a plan that he would actually carry out. However, Sade may have been utilizing Kairos at the time to deliver his message mocking the powerful figures of France due to the timeliness of the novel. The novel follows four men: Duc de Blangis, President Curval, Bishop of X, and Durcet. In 1785, the French were facing economic failures and major food shortages which led to the French Revolution in 1789. The First Estate and nobilities were essentially living lavishly while the rest of the country faced social inequality and had little food. This concept is seen in the 120 Days of Sodom as every day the men indulge with Spanish wines and four-course meals. Sade also writes that each character murdered one or more people in order to reach the social and economic status that each libertine possesses. French nobles were incredibly corrupt at the time and Sade was most likely drawing attention to the fact that many elites gained their power through zero effort of their own. Each man plays a different role in the corrupt view–the Duke represented the elitist nobles, the Bishop represented corruption in the church, President Curval represented the corruption in the legal system because he was a judge, and Durcet represented the corrupt finance system.

The men also believe that they are above the law and God, striving for total control over their victims throughout the book. The men feel no guilt or remorse for committing blasphemy, murder, sodomy, etc. which suggests that Sade wanted to mock these archetypes or French elites at the time by creating a tale where they use power and money to commit violent acts against women and young girls. This novel was still utterly vile regardless of Sade’s intention.