Author: VM

            In the last section of the Anarchist Cookbook, Powell details what to do when being arrested, going into detail about the process and repeating things I myself have heard many times before. Respect the cop, answer their questions if absolutely necessary, do not show fear, and finally, most importantly, shut up. This contrasts with the rest of his book, which blatantly drags the government, the military, and the police, basically calling them useless by suggesting a man should only respect the laws he gives himself. Ignoring the misogyny there for a second, this is interesting to me, as Powell clearly had an intense dislike for those who manage or have authority over society. However, the situation must be different when one is actually in the hands of the law. As Powell states repeatedly, a cop always has weapons that they know how to use and have used before, that gives them an immediate advantage; with this power they can do anything they want and it is best to comply. It just really strikes me that this is completely opposite everything Powell was advocating for in the rest of his book. For such a controversial text, the Anarchist Cookbook has several instances of valid advice, and I think this is one of them.

            A quote from the postscript that I found funny, “If you smoke, carry an extra pack of cigarettes with you, as it is a real bitch getting cigarettes in jail” (155). To me, this shows the American dependence on stimulants to calm down during the workday, something that then allows them to keep working. For someone so against capitalism, I would think Powell would oppose cigarettes, especially as he lists out all the other drugs one can create, access, or/and use in a prior section.

Finally, I just wanted to mention how outdated the pricing within this book was, I mean less than a hundred dollars for a gun that is now priced to over five hundred dollars. Powell mentions how every man should have at least a gun, but also a rifle if possible, something that seems outrageous to me in the day of mass-shootings.

While humorous in its depiction of men at times, the SCUM Manifesto managed to annoy me with its ableist language and eugenics philosophy. For such a radical feminist proposal, I had thought its attitude might be kind to those deemed lesser by society; I was incorrect. Instead, Solanas declares genetic control will soon be possible and production of people with “physical defects of deficiencies, including emotional deficiencies” would be immoral. I disagree with this entirely, as people with disabilities or different abilities can have perfectly satisfactory or even enjoyable lives no matter their physical, mental, or emotional capabilities. People who are different are not lesser, they are just as worthy as everyone else. The suggestion of genetic control is not only scientifically inaccurate, as many disabilities can be caused by simple life activities, it is also abhorrent in philosophy, as it has historically discriminated against race, gender, sexuality, and marginalized communities. Later in her writings, Solanas promotes the formation and use of “friendly suicide center[s]” for handicapped “beings”, something that very much reminds me of Nazism and concentration camps. Thus, Solanas’ belief disadvantages the very people she claims to uplift; women.

Women are more likely than men to have disabilities and women are more likely than men to not receive appropriate medical care. Thus, shouldn’t radical feminism support changing medical systems to be based around both genders, shouldn’t Solanas uplift the idea that all bodies are equal, instead of proclaiming the perfect female can be artificially generated? I might agree that the patriarchal society has consistently harmed and put down women for literal millennia, however, I do not believe in reckless violence or condescending behavior. I want careful education, better societal standards, and equal opportunities. Solanas roots for anarchist actions that destroy society, focusing on pure rebellion which would harm millions, even billions, including those she wants to save. This manifesto is not realistic, it is delusional hope dressed as political commentary.

Looking at the film, “The Circle”, with contemporary analysis, this paper examines the impact of surveillance on society. As technology continues to infiltrate everyday life, it should be considered how much should be shared with the public and if such communication should be necessary. Another focus would be whether personal identities are fading as social media usage increases. The difference between truth and falsification will be tested, and this research will ask if governments should be allowed to monitor the population in their everyday lives. Additionally, it will question whether such actions are invasive.

Modern-day demonstrations against government and corporate control through cameras like those run by Flock and Axon will be studied along with movie reviews and scholarly articles. It will discuss the dangers of basing knowledge on ratings from the internet instead of personal experience or credentials and peer-reviewed work. It will reflect on the ideas of requiring participation in society, focusing on mandatory voting. Most of all, the right to privacy will be analyzed.

Accountability, knowledge, unity, and nature are becoming more and more important as the number of people getting information or communicating through screens increases. Therefore, it must be determined how much this can hurt humanity and the environment. Diverse perspectives must be explored and civilization must be protected. This research paper will examine such subjects and provide a conclusion explaining the different answers one may find.

I have read several fictional and non-fictional books on the Holocaust and life in Nazi Germany before, so I didn’t not find the history and stories told within the Memorial Museum shocking or even different from what I know already. However, this visit was important to me, as it is a physical manifestation of the world’s dedication to remembrance. The books we have covered on the topic, Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf, represent one side of history and the museum delves into the complete opposite. I expected to cry at the atrocities presented within, so when I didn’t, I felt heartless. On the other hand, I have seen these stories before, and I simply don’t want to see them again. The visit may have been significant, but all I could feel was solemnity.

Catering to ages eight and up, the museum has one section specifically for a younger audience which I found interesting. Titled “Daniel’s Story”, the exhibit focuses on the experience of a young Jewish boy during the Holocaust. Signage is lower, to accommodate children, and the language is much simpler than what is displayed in other areas. The story is quite straight-forward and narrated throughout the area. With examples of toys, clothing, beds, and more, the exhibit shows children how Jewish life was disrupted and then destroyed in Nazi Germany, all in ways that they can understand. This is vital, as it allows younger visitors to connect with a character just like them, someone they see in themselves, someone they can see being harmed and feel the same pain the character does.

By providing detailed experiences for a wide range of audiences the Holocaust Museum can easily inform many on the truth of the Holocaust. As antisemitism is again on the rise, this is becoming imperative. As stated several times in all parts of the Museum, such a thing can never happen again. I feel like this field trip was valuable and gave me more to think about when considering the lead up to Nazi Germany and consequences thereafter.

            Reading the translator’s note in the Manheim edition of Mein Kampf, I agreed with practically every word as the author laid out Hitler’s personality. Desperate to appear cultured, incoherent and rambling in his rants, using the words of others to authenticate his beliefs, Hitler is a messy writer. However, as the introduction to the book taught me, Hitler didn’t write Mein Kampf, he dictated it to a friend. While it may seem gauche to judge a fascist dictator from beyond the grave, I cannot help but find him pathetic. He grew up wealthy, wasted his money after inheritance, enlisted in the military in a fit of nationalism, raged when the war was lost, joined a political party that he could manipulate, and tried to take over the world. I look at his life story and think, “How did he gain so much power,” despite knowing the answer.

            The very last quote to catch my attention in the introduction was on page 55 for my copy, which discusses how Mein Kampf was written at a very basic level, certainly not a scholarly level. Specifically, it states that Hitler’s political layout for Nazism never presented any original ideas within the text, he consistently mentioned the ideas, plans, beliefs of others, sometimes famous philosophers, sometimes anonymous. This struck me as interesting, because it reveals a key detail about Hitler; he relies on being slightly better educated than most, making it easy for those with an inferior education to respect him, while making it clear to those with a superior education just how plagiarized his work is. Again, this is reflected in the people he surrounds himself with, thugs, addicts, and paranoiacs. From what I understand, Hitler’s book shouldn’t be as popular as it is/was; the popularity comes entirely from who he became.

            Another section of the introduction that caught my attention was on page 48, which examines Hitler’s false regard for the German economy. Throughout Mein Kampf, Hitler blames the failed economy for the failing German state. However, this sentiment is not reflected in his later political speeches on foreign policy, most of which focus on anti-communism, Lebensraum, and racism. As explained in the text, this points to Hitler using the failed economy as a talking point to gain interest but then disregarding the matter once he held power. Again, this reveals an important part of Hitler’s character, it shows that Hitler focused entirely on increasing public attention on him as well as his political influence.

Being completely honest, I didn’t understand all of Hitler’s mad ramblings. I can see how his fascist beliefs can grow into the basis of governmental law in Nazi Germany, but it seems like he is making some wild leaps in analysis. In chapter 10, Hitler discusses everything that went wrong in Germany before, during, and after World War I. In chapter 11, Hitler proclaims the greatness of the Aryan race and the inherent worthiness of the German fatherland. Neither chapters’ subject were appealing to me, though I was able to find sections that provoked some thought. Specifically in Chapter 10, when Hitler is discussing the Fatherland’s decay, he mentions that the Reichstag, a building meant to represent the greatness of Germany, was given half the funding of a military warship and walls coated in plaster. Knowing what the building looks like even the modern day, I find it hard to see why Hitler would be upset about such a grand building. To him it was a physical manifestation of the failures the German state was dealing with, to me it looks like a palace fit for a king.

Throughout the text are the founding beliefs of Nazism and many aspects of antisemitism, as Hitler lays down his philosophy and political plans. However, not only is Hitler the literal leader of fascists, he also is incorrect in his understanding of genetics and history. Hitler claims that cities are losing their culture and slowing down in favor of adding room for simple residence areas; in my opinion, this shows the slow change of access and class as the twentieth century began. As explained in the footnotes in chapter 10 when discussing German cities, Hitler’s declarations were wrong, as the cities continued to grow in culture and art until the war and well after. Similarly, Hitler states “mixing” blood between races only leads to mental and physical decline in offspring as well as lower standards in culture. Yet this is simple racism and is easily disproven by countless scientific studies and education on anthropology.

In conclusion, Hitler was an angry man whose erroneous writings might have been forgotten if the world were different. I can see why the text is controversial, it certainly brings up uncomfortable subjects like antisemitism, racism, nationalism, and bigotry, but I also understand why we must study it. The book allows an insight into the mind of a fascist, something that deserves to be studied as a way to better human understanding and abilities.

I feel as through the Boy in the Striped Pajamas allows children to understand the horror of Nazi Germany and its actions without going into too much detail or bigotry. As I was around 8 years old when I first read the book, I was able to relate to the main characters and see their world through a similar, childish lens. I could understand how Bruno acted as well as how Schmuel may have felt. Watching the movie as an adult now, I can see its shortcomings; in its treatment of women, in its treatment of dissenters, and in its representation of those in concentration camps. However, I can still relate to the understanding I felt as a child, as the movie makes the story simple and clear enough for a younger audience to follow. Therefore, I think the Boy in the Striped Pajamas movie is good way for children to be introduced to the Holocaust, a story that they can empathize with and remember.  

However, I also want to explore the perspective of Lieutenant Kotler, as he both disgusted and enthralled me. His character was repellant, with his vicious treatment of those “lower” than him and hypocritical backstory, but I could see how his actions had understandable reasons behind them. Kotler’s father did not approve of the Nazi party and left for Switerland, the “safe” land of Europe. As such, Kotler felt the need to make his support blatant, and so powerful that nobody would doubt his devotion to the cause. But in doing this, Kotler is a morally corrupt person; he kills Pavel, a prisoner working as servant for the family, because he needs an outlet for his rage and embarrassment at being discovered. In the end, his commitment to Nazi beliefs, to fascist ideology, was not enough, and he was sent to the front lines to die for his country. To me, this shows how one can act as perfect as society demands and still fail to meet its expectations, it is better instead to be your own person.

Overt in its prejudice and overwhelming with its distortion of the truth, “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was almost boring to read. Not only was the text extremely repetitive, it also contradicted itself, then explained away its inconsistencies by stating Gentiles will never be able to understand the world around them. Taking on a eugenicist perspective, the text mentions seeing a clear difference in mentality between “Gentiles” and Jewish people, something attributed to God rather than a difference in culture, community, education, means, etc. The focus on making Jewish people all-powerful and Gentiles all stupid annoyed before I reached 50 pages; it seems so childish, as any scholarly text should be able to use better language or benchmarks than “he doesn’t follow the same religion as me, so he is intellectually inferior.” It is circular reasoning, something that people use when they can’t think of anything else; clearly the author was not Jewish, as any self-respecting human would be able to come up with better insults for their supposed mortal enemies.

Focusing on the section of the text discussing removing history from education, I am annoyed to see the very next sentence come into conflict with the prior by saying the previous Gentile governments will be used as examples of failures. Again, the text disagrees with itself, this time in terms of setting up future public education. This inconsistency just proves to me that either the author did not believe in the point they were trying to make, or whoever wrote this did not do enough research into the topic they are covering. Both show the lack of experience and pretentiousness of the author, someone clearly pretending to be something they are not in an attempt to discredit the people they “represent”. Knowing the contextual background for this text, I understand why such mistakes continued to stick out to me while reading, but as a scholar, I simply do not like such an exaggerated account.

Something that plagued me while reading “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was how French it seemed. Several times, “Liberté, Égalité, [and] Fraternité” are mentioned as part of Jewish political philosophy; not to mention how multiple words have French spelling, instead of Russian or even Yiddish phrases. At the end of the text, it is explained that these “minutes” were discovered in France, supposedly where the Zionist headquarters is located. However, this makes no sense to me, as there was a large population of Jewish people living in Eastern Europe in the early twentieth century.

Something that specifically caught my attention in this matter was the term “Dreyfus schools”, a term that likely refers to the case of Captain Alfred Dreyfus. Mr. Dreyfus was a Jewish man living in France who was falsely accused of treason in 1894, and he is mentioned as the source of French antisemitism in the twentieth century. According to my research, this was worsened by the world-wide effects of the Great Depression, as extremists and fascists with France and throughout Europe took the opportunity to blame the hard times on the Jewish people. As this occurred only a few years before the publishing of “Protocols”, I find it hard to believe that powerful Jewish world leaders were gathering in France to discuss world domination. And further, it increases my belief that whoever wrote this book was not only an Anti-Semite, but someone who had French experience or connections.

Of course, it is difficult to determine who exactly forged this text, but I think all hypotheses should be considered. Additionally, something I thought while re-reading was that the text may have been created by multiple authors, thereby making certain sections of the book seem to hold certain attributes from certain nationalities, and making other sections a bit more unclear. All in all, reflecting on the historical context and linguistic characteristics has been interesting and I want to do this again with future blog posts.

I cannot help but be taken aback by how much the Marquis de Sade reminds me of Larry Nassar. Both men who wielded their power in ways that helped themselves and hurt others. Scholarly pretenders, people who used their knowledge and education to scorn and confuse the people they needed in order to survive. Disgusting abusers who deserve every punishment possible. Their lives and actions disgust me, and I think it is only right that both suffer(ed) in prison for their crimes.

As a whole, I find it shocking that the Marquis de Sade was not only able to write 120 Days of Sodom while imprisoned but also save the manuscript enough that it remains intact enough for modern audiences/governments to fight for the right of ownership. The journey of the original manuscript is incredible and shows me how literary objects gain value with age and infamy. However, the life of the author is far less interesting to me, only making me think about how powerful the wealthy were in France prior to the revolution as well as how the average citizen in the 1700s may compare their lives to the Marquis de Sade’s.

Referring back to the title of this course, “Forbidden Texts”, I believe 120 Days of Sodom deserves to be recognized as a controversial book, something that can easily offend, something that should certainly not be easily accessible to children, especially those with no knowledge of adult activities. However, I do not think this book should be banned entirely, as it has both historical and literary value, with a contentious philosophy and fascinating past. As someone living in a country with free speech, I think it is important for scholars to examine texts like this, as a way to expand our understanding of the world as well as human corruption. Overall, the Marquis de Sade makes me uncomfortable, but contemplative.

Listening to 120 Days of Sodom was one of the most horrific experiences of my life, and yet I know that my torment is nothing compared to what the characters in the book go through. Within the book four powerful men do unspeakable things to many people, delighting in their debauchery while literally killing innocents. I do not want to describe what occurs in this book, as I do not have the words to describe how disturbed, how concerned, how sickened I was by the philosophy and plot with 120 Days of Sodom. In all honesty, the worst part about analyzing this book is how repetitive it becomes, as everything seems to blur together after the first hundred pages or so, with depravity after depravity crushing my ability to care.

Focusing on the characters, I find the storytellers most compelling, as all survived and all encouraged the so called “libertines” to continue or even expand their wickedness. The wives did not catch my attention, because of course one was loyal beyond rational thought and a couple were secretly “misbehaving”, at least according to those in charge. As for the many children defiled within the book, I tried my best to skip or skim such sections, as the idea of hurting young boys or girls in the ways explained makes me physically nauseous. I can only give so much emotion to a book, and so I did not think much about the other adults mentioned in the book, doing my best to forget what happens to the cooks, the maids, the nannies, and even the people attending the parties at the beginning. If I tried to care about everything that happened in this book, I would not have enough left of myself to deal with the real world. In conclusion, I think the bits of 120 Days of Sodom I can remember will haunt my nightmares for the years to come.

Cannibalism, a crime so heinous that most who resort to such measures only do so when wildly desperate, is depicted in Smith’s “Modest Proposal” as a way to control the population, specifically the poor and unhoused. When I first understood what this classist, sexist man from the 17^th-18^th century was suggesting, I was so repulsed that I had to physically shut my computer and look outside for several minutes. As someone who has worked with children, the very idea of raising humans to be slaughtered is something that goes against my core beliefs and moral values. One objection to this, as mentioned in the text, may be; well, humans raise animals to be slaughtered, how is it any different? To such a question, I might say that pigs, cows, and sheep do not have the same value as a human in my mind, mainly due to the fact that they are a separate species and cannot communicate with me.

No matter a person’s background, I believe every human has intrinsic worth to their community and should be respected, protected, and educated as a child to ensure their success and civic engagement as an adult. Smith’s plan reeks of old philosophies that declare the wealthy to be the only ones who are smart, valuable, and powerful; something that is not only incorrect, but offensive to every human who is not lucky enough to be born into a rich family. Of course, only a person who has never known desperation, who has never lived on the streets, who has never had to beg for food would suggest those in poverty to sell and/or eat their own children, their own flesh and blood, as a way to boost the economy. This old-fashioned thinking disgusts me, and I am not looking forward to discussing such a topic in class.

While reading the Gospel of Judas, I couldn’t help but wonder at how Jesus acts while amongst his followers, continuously expressing amusement at their ignorance and attempting to instruct them on how to better themselves. Throughout the text, Jesus literally laughs when his disciples get something incorrect before responding to their questions with allegories or prophecies that they do not or cannot yet understand. This image of Jesus conflicts with the one I was raised with, as He does not act as the all-knowing Son of God, but more like a snarky teenager who just discovered adult entertainment flaunting their knowledge in front of friends. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Judas had little reason to portray the Savior of Humanity in such a way unless they specifically wanted sympathy to go towards the one who led Him to His downfall. Therefore, I considered the motives behind this reading, questioning who wrote it, when, and why.

Another part of this Gospel that confused me was the Apostles’ vision of a hedonistic, sinful temple dedicated to Jesus, as I have never heard of such a thing before. Moreover, Jesus’ response did not make sense to me, as it seemed to imply his own disciples would prompt such a scenario to occur. Again, it made me consider who the author was and why they portrayed both Jesus and his disciples in such a manner.

Something I found very difficult for this reading was how much my own biases interfered with my understanding as well as how much of the original text was missing, thereby preventing full understanding. Having attended both Catholic and Christian schools, I thought my perspective of Christianity would match the portrayal within this Gospel, but that was certainly not the case. I was baffled by Jesus’ actions and slightly offended by the idea that Judas would receive special conversations while his fellow disciples were mocked for attempting to share their insights. Overall, the Gospel of Judas is something I believe requires further study, and I look forward to hearing from my classmates on the subject.

Mary of Magdala reminds me of the poet Sappho, a historical figure of whom very little is known, and what is known is exaggerated. Before reading her gospel, I had barely heard of Mary of Magdala, only thinking that she was one of the women who followed Jesus around like groupies do with boy bands in the modern day. Now I can say my understanding of her character as well as the common interpretation of her role in early Christian history is incorrect; Mary of Magdala should be considered one of Jesus’ trusted disciples, not a mere follower, but someone who helped shape Christianity.

Focusing on the words within this recovered gospel, I want to note how Peter was the first to ask Mary to share what Jesus taught her while also being the one of the two Apostles that doubt her word. Specifically, he reminds Mary how Jesus loved her more than any other women, something that makes me wonder about the original wording as well as possible translation mix-ups. In an earlier class I looked at the original Koine Greek meaning of words within the Bible compared to the modern English translation, which revealed a few misleading terms that could have been translated to mean something else entirely. As the Bible has changed quite a bit over the past millennia, I wonder how exactly the Gospel of Mary has been altered.

Referring back to Peter naming Mary the woman the Savior loved most, I wonder whether Peter could have said Jesus loved Mary more than any man, as in human being, in his original statement. This would transform interpretations of Mary as well as the intention behind Peter’s request. If Peter asked Mary for her wisdom, knowing she was Jesus’ most loved person on Earth, then one reason for him to question her is jealousy. If Mary is discredited in front of Jesus’ Apostles, if the other disciples doubt her word, then they might also doubt the relationship Mary had with Jesus. As seen in the text, Andrew questions Mary on whether Jesus would say the things she mentions, while Peter goes directly to questioning whether Mary should be trusted as a woman, given Jesus surrounded himself by men he trusted, men he told everything else. Therefore, I think it would be interesting to look into the translations of the Gospel of Mary of Magdala, and how else the original text could be interpretated.

Welcome to Sites@UMW. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!