Author: Wood Lin

The Bible of the Racist Right

The story centers around Earl Turner, a low ranking member of a group called The Organization. The Organization was a new government that seized power, “saving” society from the Jews and other minorities (The System).

The first diary entry talks about how The Organization is finally waging war against the System and that it is said that the citizens are not allowed to own firearms under the Cohen Act. This entry also enforces harmful black stereotypes, Turner writes that without guns, there has been many black groups popping up to take advantage of defenseless whites.

Continuing on, Turner recalls how they tried to take away his firearms, apparently he had 8 firearms. I don’t quite understand why anyone would need so many. Another interesting piece of detail was that the Gun Raiders weren’t encouraged to search black neighborhoods because racists were primarily the ones that owned guns. The writer is very good at making whites the victim and antagonizing minorities.

Entry one ends with new rules that were enforced in The Organization. Anyone who missed a meeting twice in a row were expelled, anyone who failed to carry out a work task was expelled, anyone who talked bad about The Organization was expelled.

The second entry talked about how the members of The Organizations lived their lives. They had little to no money and had abandoned their cars because the police was looking for them. Turner wrote about how him and his friend, Henry, who was also a part of the Organization, robbed a liquor store and how they killed others for resources and money (Ex : Berman’s Deli).

The third entry talked about how The Organization and The System were actively fighting each other and that The Organization is very hellbent on getting rid of racists.

The next entries just follow Turner’s life in The Organization, which eventually they make a move, and take over more, and more of the country. When The Organization takes over, they kill all non-whites and race traitors (those who protected or married a non-white) a day they called The Day of the Rope. The book ends with Turner carrying out a Kamikaze style mission, destroying a important System stronghold.

The book was written by William Luther Pierce, who was the leader of a Neo-Nazi, white supremacist group called The National Alliance. Pierce was a physics professor at Oregon State University and was also a follower of George Lincoln’s American Nazi Party.

Pierce was said to not be very interested in politics until his colleagues blamed much of the state of the world on Jews. As he became more interested in politics, he neglected his kids, didn’t pay attention to them unless he was beating them. He was a very abusive father. Disgusting.

The Turner Diaries are also said to be the cause of a federal building bombing by Timothy McVeigh in 1995, which killed 168 people.

[7/10 Read, The story kind of reminded me of 1984, and gave me a new perspective on the dangers of oppressing people, even if the people are not innocent and are harmful to society.]

Ted Kaczynski was a mathematical prodigy and graduated from Harvard University, became a mathematician, but then retreated to a cabin the woods to live a more primitive lifestyle.

Kaczynski’s childhood was an fortunate and unfortunate one, both his parents were in the working class, and started out as Roman Catholics. He was born a genius and was a well liked leader by his classmates but due to his intelligence, he was moved a grade, and was bullied by the older students.

In high school, his interest in mathematics took up most of his time. He joined a science and mathematics group called The Briefcase Boys. He skipped junior year because he excelled at everything academic, he ended up graduating high school at the age of 15. He was one of his school’s national merit finalists and applied to Harvard University where he was accepted.

“They packed him up and sent him to Harvard before he was ready … He didn’t even have a driver’s license.” – Kaczsynski’s Classmate

Everyone described him as focused on his work and very reserved in personality. He graduated from Harvard and went to the University of Michigan. During this time, he almost transitioned to being a woman but changed his mind last second. It seemed like this was a big turning point in his life as he truly desired to kill the psychiatrist that was supposed to see him. -> When reading this, I was very surprised and confused, listening to his book, he seemed very conservative. But at the same time, he didn’t seem to hate minorities, just didn’t prefer them.

Speaking about his book, I think the reason he wrote was because he saw the destruction of nature first hand. During his retreat, he lived with no electricity and no running water, he realized that society’s dependence on industrialization and technology was destroying, not only society itself, but nature. Thus, he wrote an manifesto called “Industrial Society and It’s Future,” and forced it’s publication in 1995 with the threat of bombing if it wasn’t published.

Throughout the 1970s-1990s, he would actively sabotage and send mini bombs to any industrial institutions like universities or airlines. In total, he killed 3 people and injured 23 others.

In his book he deemed it necessary to destroy the government/fascism and go back to a more primitive lifestyle, where problems of the modern world didn’t exist like mental illness because back then, survival was everyone’s biggest priority. He seems to hate “leftists” very much and the way he describes them is very interesting because in contemporary society, these descriptions would be very fitting to right winged individuals. (Self-hating, power hungry, putting on a facade to help people, especially minorities.)

[ 6/10 Read, I liked how he was sort of protecting nature but from the way he’s writing, he just hates people a lot more than his noble quest of bringing everyone back to nature ]

“Use care, caution, and common sense. This book is not for children or morons.”

For my review, I’ll focus mainly on the content of the book, but before Powell begins listing down recipes for very questionable things, he defines anarchy loosely as revolution by violence.

Chapter 1. Drugs

The first chapter begins with ways of cooking pot as well as what nice dishes you can makes with it like pork and beans with a side of pot. The way he formats recipes is by introducing them, then giving a vague but step by step way of making whatever it is that you want to make. If one method doesn’t work, he also lists another you could try. After writing out the methods, Powell also draws little illustrations to help guide you through the illegal process of growing marihuana, hash, peyote, etc. I have honestly never heard of the other drugs but it’s honestly impressive how much research he did for all of these recipes (even putting the exact temperatures), even if it’s probably wrong. I would assume making drugs is not an easy DIY process you could do in your basement though.

Chapter 2. Electronics, Sabotage, and Surveillance

The second chapter talks mostly about eavesdropping electronic devices like microphones and voice activated tape recorders. It doesn’t seem like there’s as much step by step information here, probably because technology was not as developed in the late 20th century. Powell emphasizes that sabotage is very important to any kind of warfare though. He lists some basic rules to support that :

1. Make sure the operation will be effective, never waste time with an violent or non-violent operation that is ineffective.

2. Hit the enemy where they least expect it, where it’ll hurt most.

3. Most sabotage should be carried out at night.

4. The timing of an operation must be perfect

5. Work only with people you trust.

6. All operations should be simple and fast

7. All weapons should be concealed and all explosives should be treated with the respect they deserve

The rest of the rules talk about how there should be one leader and everything must be secret. Anyone who reveals anything will be executed.

Chapter 3. Natural, Non-lethal, and Lethal Weapons

This chapter title was the only title that confused me, what does he mean by natural weapons? The answer ended up being physical combat and where exactly to hit your enemies. It talked about hand-to-hand combat, weaponed combat, “niche” weapon choices like a garrote, and finally guns. For guns, he illustrates many options with the price included too! I wonder how long it took to research all of these, I don’t even think he background checked anything, just read it, and wrote it down.

Chapter 4. Explosives and Booby Traps

The final chapter may be the craziest one, it’s just all about explosive recipes. Powell lists all the chemicals needed to make T.N.T and dynamites. I’m very concerned at this point, how did he even get this information, and how does he know he’s even right about it? This was by far the longest chapter, I think this might’ve been his favorite subject. He ends the book with a postscript and it basically says that it’s alright to kill people, to spill blood, because the goal of freedom is worth it.

“Freedom is based on respect, and respect must be earned by the spilling of blood.”

Context :

The book was written by William Powell, he had started the book as a teenager, and published the book when people were very much protesting the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. He was inspired to write this book because of the Vietnam Veterans he had met in his life but as he grew older, he very much regretted writing this book.

A few years after the book was published, Powell converted to Anglicanism, and tried to remove the Anarchist Cookbook from circulation, he had hoped the book would disappear silently but just like with De Sade it never did! There was even a film made out of it.

[ Overall, I would give the read a 6/10, I didn’t quite understand what the point of the book was, just recipes for chaos? That’s not very revolutionary that just sounds dumb and dangerous. ]

Reading the first few lines of the SCUM Manifesto, I had originally thought it was talking bad about women, saying, “thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.” It sounded like men were blaming men for societal problems and I was not excited to read another text that dehumanized women. But instead this text dehumanizes men!

I know that’s not something to be excited about but if you asked me what I thought of men (the majority), I would have nothing good to say.

The SCUM Manifesto should’ve been called the Misandrist Manifesto because it’s just about hating men. There seems to be three main points of the Manifesto:

• 1. Men are incomplete females, longing to be whole, therefore projecting their insecurities onto everyone around them (Ego, Apathy, Lust)
• 2. Men try to make women “men” and men, “women.” (Defines women as emotionally intelligent, academically intelligent, independent, and kind while men are the complete opposite.)
• 3. Women are the foundation of everything and society does not need the male species to thrive, society would actually be even better if the male species didn’t exist

Along with those three main points, the author writes of a foundational plan to achieve this society. First saying that if women (who agree with SCUM) all join together to collapse the male dominated society by leaving their jobs and their husbands. “If all women simply left men, refused to have anything to do with any of them — ever, all men, the government, and the national economy would collapse completely.”

After they have sort of influenced in society they will go out to murder all men that do not bend to SCUM’s will. “SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men’s Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Men’s Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves, men who, regardless of their motives, do good, men who are playing pall with SCUM.”

The only men who are allowed to exist for the meantime are “Nice, clean-living male women will be invited to the sessions to help clarify any doubts and misunderstandings they may have about the male sex;” This also implies that the definition of women does not have direct correlation with biological sex so perhaps men who accept that they’re not fully men, are allowed to live. It sounds very dystopian. Although I love the idea of embracing a gender/spirituality beyond the defined biological sexes, there are people who are comfortable as they are, and are good people. At least I’d like to think that, this text is very pessimistic but at the same time very real.

The interesting part of this text is that it sounds a lot like The Protocols of The Elders of Zion but it wasn’t fabricated, it’s, from what I read, very serious. With the fact that it isn’t a fabrication, I could see men using this type of text against women, if that has not been done already.

[ 9/10 Read, it was funny to see (bad) men addressed in this way, and many of the points made psychological sense ]

In recent times, specifically, politics within the 21st century, the United States has demonstrated a rise in violence and discrimination. The hostility toward minority groups such as women, colored individuals, and LGBTQ+ has exploded in the media and within the current government administration. The Trump Administration declaring the erasure of trans individuals and women’s reproductive rights, there is a need to discuss how far society could justify these acts of hatred.

From a contemporary and broader perspective, it seems that overall morality has decreased. In media, there has been Republicans that justify sexual violence toward women, see Nick Fuentes. The spreading of violent rhetoric has influenced many individuals, often young men, to harass others. Along with the rise of violence and discrimination, is the rise in Christian nationalism. The current make up of Trump Administration supporters identify themselves as Christian.

The purpose of this research is to explore the correlation between religion and the degradation of morality in the 21st century.

Informal parts that need to be edited : It also aims to address if morality has even declined over the decades or if the “evils” of the 21st century are natural. Often times in nature, there is a rate of change or pattern in societies. Is there possibly a measurement of discrimination and violence? If so how could we compare the morality of different U.S time periods? Compared to 18th century, the world has definitely progressed in terms of human rights, but why is it that we’re attempting to go backwards? Is it important to measure immorality relative to history or relative to current society? Is there a measure of safety and comfortability if there is no measurement of discrimination/hatred? And why is it that Christianity, the religion that preached good deeds and loving thy neighbor, the same religion that’s inflicting violence on others?

[ I tried to write an abstract without direct personal thoughts or questions but it is very difficult, I am confused on how we should approach this ]

Before this, I had never been to a Holocaust Museum or any historical museum, our parents had only brought us to STEM and art related ones. I believe our parents never even learned about the Holocaust, they are quite conservative so while I was going through it, I kept thinking about the people who disregard or have never learned about it. That, these millions of deaths, were just covered up, and forgotten. It was terrifying to think about how easy it is for evil to exist and for no one to know.

Every section of the museum could be vaguely seen in current society, a “leader” that blames all their issues on one or multiple parties without thorough/good reasons, a party based upon hate, and a party only serving one group of people. All these minorities targeted in the Holocaust are also being targeted today.

There were 3 certain sections that will probably stick with me the most for the rest of my life :

Shoes – The stacks of shoes that weren’t burnt in the fires, that because they weren’t made of flesh, and bones- they survived. Because they weren’t people, because they weren’t living, breathing, they weren’t destroyed. I can’t properly explain the quote but it sent chills down my spine.

“”We are the shoes, we are the last witnesses. We are the shoes from grandchildren and grandfathers. From Prague, Paris, Amsterdam. And because we are only made of fabric and leather, And not of blood and flesh, Each one of us avoided the hellfire.” – Moshe Szulsztein

Filmed Videos of Bodies – Me and North stared at these videos for a long time, each filmed from a different armies point of view, I believe. It was just shots of dead bodies, with barely any meat on them. They were starved until their bones were showing, you could see the joint bones, the pelvis, and the ribs. You could see how the Germans treated the dead bodies, how there was dozens stacked on each other, and how they were just pushed by a bulldozer into a giant pit to be buried. There were also scenes where other prisoners had to drag or carry the dead bodies away. Imagine being forced to carry a friend or relative. I just cannot fathom how someone could be okay with this, be desensitized to immorality.

Gas Chamber Sculptures – The artist that created these sculptures was very meticulous and empathetic, they took the time to sculpt dozens or even hundreds of people in the gas chambers. The emotions on their faces illustrated pure agony and fear, it truly invokes a feeling of terror. I cannot imagine the feeling when they entered the room, finally thinking they would get a shower after being unable to shower for weeks, and then the room filling with poisonous gas. It wouldn’t have even been a quick death, it would take more than 5 minutes to die.

Overall, the experience was very well curated, the progression of the museum was very organized, and informative. It was only information, they had sounds of people screaming, so that the future generations would never want this to happen again. To understand that it should never happen again. That it is important to remember and understand where hatred leads you.

Adolf Hiedler was born in Braunau, Austria on April 20th, 1889. He was the 4th some of his father’s 3rd wife, growing up, he had a lot of half sisters, and brothers. Later on in his life he changed his last name to Hitler because he preferred the spelling of Hitler.

His childhood was certainty ever changing, as a child he was described as “Sunny” and “intelligent” but as he grew older, he became lazy. He began to get low scores and used the excuse of a chest illness to get out of class. Hitler’s father then passed away when he was 13 and led his mother to pampering him with the remaining pension.

When Hitler turned 17 he moved to Vienna to pursue art but was rejected then in the next year, his mother died, and Hitler inherited his parent’s wealth. Even though he had money from his parents and the school he was supposed to be studying at, he wasn’t used to a humble lifestyle, and blew through all his money.

In 1909 Hitler was homeless and began selling his art pieces under a Jewish art dealer, which is ironic because the Jews were the ones that helped him in a tight spot. Interesting enough, Hitler might also be of Jewish blood, as his unknown grandfather might’ve possibly been Jewish.

Being surrounding by all sorts of people when he was homeless, he began taking an interest in politics while he evaded his war duties. (Strange that he did because in Mein Kampf, he glorified war, and seemed to want to go.) 3 Political parties attracted his attention : the Violent, Pro-German, Anti-Habsburg, Anti-Semitic German National party led by Georg Von Schoenerer. The Catholic Christian Social Party led by Dr. Karl Lueger, and the Social Democratic Party. The party that attracted him the most was the Catholic Christian Social Party but it’s hard to say if Hitler was Catholic. He mentions God a lot in Mein Kampf and was also baptized as a child but it’s complicated because he was hostile toward Catholicism in his adulthood. Perhaps, due to fact that he wanted to centralize his political power even more.

When Hitler first started out in politics (after World War One) he worked as an orator for Captain Mayr before he branched off and did his own rallies. He established himself as the head of propaganda and became the most successful orator, funded by private clients.

Main Kampf sold very well (probably because everyone was required to have the book) but it would have made over 6 million in USD today. And it was translated into basically every popular language. What’s strange is that, Hitler didn’t really want his book to become famous, “If I had had any idea in 1924 that I would have become Reich chancellor, I never would have written the book.” I don’t really understand why though, well, I guess I still don’t understand why he became a horrid man. Social influences? Growing up spoiled? It’s hard to tell.

Chapter 5 : The World War

Hitler begins the chapter by clarifying that he has never been a pacifist, he glorified war, and loved Germany so very much. When the war of 1914 approached, he requested King Ludwig the 3rd to put him in a Barvarian Regiment, enthusiastically stating, “my joy and gratitude knew no end when I had opened the letter with trembling hands and read that my request had been granted.”

He loved the idea of war because he desperately wanted to serve his country, saying, “As a boy and a young man I had often formed the wish that at least once I might be allowed to prove by deeds that my national enthusiasm was not an empty delusion.” I cannot tell if he loved the idea of serving and protecting his “country” or that he loved the idea of power and recognition.

He continues to emphasize that it’s for the livelihood of Germany though. He believed that the reason the war came to be was not because Austria was “fighting for some Serbian satisfaction, but Germany fighting for her existence, the German nation for its being or non-being, for freedom, and future.”

When he arrived on the battlefield, him, and the other German soldiers were proud to fight for their country but soon “the romance of the battles had turned into horror. The enthusiasm gradually cooled down and the exuberant joy was suffocated by the fear of death.” He describes his war experience with strangely flowery terms, like war was beautiful even if people died. He wrote it quite poetically but maybe that’s because he’s an artist at heart.

During the war, Hitler also thought often about politics, and how much he hated them. “I never hated these prattlers more than just at that time, when every regular fellow who had to say something shouted it into the enemy’s face, or more appropriately, left his mouth at home and silently did his duty in some place. Yes, in those days I hated all these ‘politicians.'” Despite the fact that Hitler is a horrible person, he seemed to only have humanity when it came to the people he loved (which were only competent Germans). He’s right that it is unfair that citizens and soldiers must go to war and die while politicians stay back and do mostly nothing but win the minds of the people. That the soldiers have to shout in the enemies face, referring that they are fighting the enemy face to face.

Hitler further describes the politicians as stupid for letting Communism spread, “But one was stupid enough to think that Marxism had now perhaps become national; a flash of genius which only shows that during these long years none of these official state leaders had thought it worth the trouble to study the nature of this doctrine, for otherwise such insanity would hardly have occurred.” This implies that he believes there should be a new order and new politicians which ultimately, he becomes.

Relating the Protocols of The Elders of Zion (Protocol 2), he blames the spread of Communism on Jews. “Marxism, the ultimate aim of which was and will always be the destruction of all non-Jewish national states.” Hitler also mentions that the Jews are an internal enemy, a snake, that closes around the European nations, like in the Protocols. “Now the serpent (Protocol 3) had a chance to continue its work, more careful than before but also more dangerously. While the honest ones were dreaming of peace within castle walls.” It’s embarrassing to read about how Hitler victimizes himself and the German population.

He continues to imply his plan on destroying the Jews, because it is to “protect” and create a better Germany, that he doesn’t mean for the destruction and death to come with it. It’s just how it is. “Every view of life, be it more of a political or of a religious nature, fights less for the negative destruction of adversary’s world of ideas, and more for the positive carrying-out of its own doctrine.” It’s horrible.

Extra Quotes :

“The more I occupied myself in those days with the idea of a necessary change in the attitude of State governments towards Social Democracy as the present personification of Marxism.” This was a crazy claim that Democracy is just the modern communism.

“As long as millions of citizens ardently worship the Jewish democratic press every morning.” Protocol 12 Jews controlling The Press.

Chapter 6 : War Propaganda

Hitler was very interested in Propaganda and that the Social-Marxist and Christian Socialist where experts at it. The majority of the chapter he talks about manipulating the masses.

“‘The Great Masses’ receptive ability is only very limited, their understanding is small, but their forgetfulness is great.” Hitler talks about how propaganda is art, it must perfectly appeal to the (stupid) masses with every color and stroke.

His method manipulation also included repetitions and affirmations, “Nevertheless, all geniality in the makeup of propaganda will not lead to success unless a fundamental principle is considered with continually sharp attention : it has to confine itself to little and to repeat this eternally.” This was shown by his salute and repeated idea that Jews were the enemy. He basically follows the manipulation strategies in the Protocols.

Hitler seems to understand psychology and manipulation very well, at least I believe he does, as he was successful at it. He was able to pick apart the U.S propaganda and use it to his own benefit. “It was fundamentally wrong to discuss the war guilt from the point of view that not Germany alone could be made responsible for the outbreak of this catastrophe, but it would have been better to burden the enemy entirely with this guilt, even if this hasn’t been in accordance with the real facts, as was indeed the case.”

Ending it with a quote that perfectly describes the process of propaganda :

“At the beginning it was apparently crazy in the impudence of its assertions, later it became disagreeable, and finally it was believed.”

Extra Quotes :

“As nations without honor usually lose their freedom and independence, which in turn, corresponds only to a higher justice, as generations of scoundrels without honor do not deserve freedom.” Indirectly justifies the killing of Jews because he believes they bring no honor and that they don’t deserve freedom.

“Then the most cruel weapons were humane if they conditioned the quicker victory, and beautiful were only those methods which helped the nation to secure the dignity of its freedom.” Indirectly justified concentration camps, torture, and killing of those they deem fit to murder.

[ 8/10 Read, I actually quite liked his writing style. ]

First Published in Russia, 1903 by Znamia (A newspaper in St. Petersburg) It was owned by Pavel Krushevan, a well known publisher, and antisemite. The Protocols themselves was said to be based off of 1873 “The Conquest of The World by the Jews” written by Frederick van Millingen. (I don’t understand why anyone would think to write something like this though, it seemed like Millingen lived a miserable life- perhaps, he just wanted to project all his pain onto a different community.)

In 1905, The Protocols were published as an appendix to a book that claimed that the Jewish people were satanic and desired to destroy the world. (It’s interesting that something could be completely made up and people would still believe it like their lives depended on it. God or Jesus totally loves it when we judge and harass others for their hopefully harmless beliefs.)

In 1917, The Bolshevik Revolution begin and The Protocols became much more widespread. As the Bolshevik Party overthrew the Zsar, the fear of communism exploded, and in the Protocols, the Jews were blamed for beginning communism. It seems like a coincidence but as long as you have a scapegoat built, people will always try to confirm their own beliefs, a psychological phenomenon called confirmation bias.

And I suppose it confirmed the claim in the past that the Jews killed Jesus and started the Bubonic Plague. (Somebody ask the Romans or Nature about that.)

In 1919, The Protocols were translated into German. In 1920, it was translated into English, French, and Japanese. Around this time, The Protocols were proven as fake by the British Newspaper and later by the German newspaper. Despite that, the text was taught as truth in 1930s Nazi Germany.

Later, in 1921, it was translated into Italian, Swedish, and Norwegian. After 1923, translations in Swedish and Arabic came.

It inspired many books, the biggest one being Henry Ford’s The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. A work that emphasized the points in “The Protocols of The Elders of Zion.” What’s worse that is that Ford was a big American Inventor, that means he already had credibility, and people blindly believed that credibility.

This conspiracy theory and fake documentation really just proved the world’s hatred toward others different from them. Even minorities went against the Jewish people, like they weren’t oppressed too. This sounds very close to modern politics, where the winners are built upon hatred instead of peace. Just like The Protocols said, the best politicians are the ones that manipulate and are apathetic towards the public. Anyways, the way this text was weaponized and amplified by everyone even though it was proved fake, disgusts me.

The only thing I knew before reading this was that it was related to antisemitism but while reading it I thought it was about Jewish Supremacy. The more I read it, the more I understood that there was no way on the gods green Earth that the Jewish People wrote this. Just by the structure of the text, it was incredibly narcissistic, and delusional.

The entire book, it just went through a guide on how to take over the world, published in the 20th century and adapted to emphasize the “importance” of the Nazi regime. The worst part of this text is that, it could possibly work, with insane precision, organization, and dedication. It reminded me much of 1984, the psychological manipulation is always so fascinating to me because we really wouldn’t know any better without free thought.

Protocol 1: Only the Jewish people are smart enough to rule and organize society -> Holy ginormous ego!!

Protocol 2,3,6,7: Declare wars (2,7) for economic benefit (3), centralization of Jewish wealth (6), and create politically instability because European rulers are dumb -> This would require a lot of sacrifice but I guess they don’t care cause 1,000 Goyim is equivalent to 1 Jew.

Protocol 4,14: Get rid of religion by replacing it with materialism and pornography because people are greedy and animalistic -> Unfortunately, religion within society is used and weaponized to benefit the individual, so this would work quite easily. It is saddening that “religious” individuals feel they have the right to do whatever they want because their God would back them up. So pleasure is alright, right? God will still love me.

Protocol 5,8,11: Cause social havoc so that no one will be able to stand up against the ideal government, control the wealthy because they’re gullible, greedy, and easy to manipulate (8), create secret Jewish laws to manipulate other world governments (11) -> They make it sound so easy but for a whole society to be very intelligent and coordinated, it’s almost impossible

Protocol 9,12,13,16,19: Double down on Jewish Propaganda, controlling free thought, education, and the press (9,16,19), create policies, and control the media for manipulation (12,13) -> This is so cool because it’s always been happening! This probably is the best place to start, along with killing all those that have critical thinking skills

Protocol 10: Abolish the Constitution and basic human rights unless it’s to be manipulated -> The Penny Method!

Protocol 15: Kill all secret organizations and those suspicious to the Jewish ruling ->

Protocol 17: Get rid of the Christian Agenda by abolishing churches and promoting the one true God -> Don’t Christians and Jews come from similar origins? Judaism was the original Christianity, correct?

Protocol 18: Finally when the time is right, the ideal government would usurp the world leaders

Protocol 20,21,22: Destroy and control the economy with gold (22) and taking out the money in circulation (21), only the Jewish will be able to dictate financial matters (21)

Protocol 23: The Jewish should be the destined rulers of the world because of God and their own cunning -> This is ironic because in the text, they say that even God couldn’t stop them or that even they could oppose God

Protocol 24: A Jewish King to rule above all with the help of the Elders

[ It was a fun text to read! 9/10 ]

When researching his life, I wanted to research 3 specific things, how he was raised, what caused him to be like this, and why did he not stop.

1. How was he raised?

• Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade was born in Paris to a noble family, where his mother had direct relation with the house of Bourbon-Conde (Family where the King of France was born into). For a few years he lived within the luxurious Hotel De Conde and was friends with the Prince of Conde until he struck him and was sent away.
  • Marquis de Sade was a boy with violent tendencies and short temper because he was spoiled. He was sent away to his grandmother than to his uncle, Abbe de Sade, which I believe he took his freakish behaviors after. Abbe de Sade was a Libertine and Priest (Woah a libertine priest? Where have I heard that before?).
  • But onto Marquis de Sade’s parents, not much is known about them other than his father was a general and his mother was related to the king but it seems they were very absent from Marquis de Sade’s life (I suppose he took after them cause he neglects his children in the future too). Soon his parents marriage falls apart due to conflicting ideals and his mother becomes a nun. (How Ironic.) His father still reluctantly provides him with money though.
  • Marquis de Sade then goes to a prestigious school where he got his education and as a teenager he joined the Seven Years War. He was highly reverend as an intelligent lieutenant but blew it off by gambling and getting with women.
  • His father arranged a Catholic marriage for him which only provided him with protection and more money honestly.
  • The rest of his life was a repetition of scandals, imprisonment, insane asylums, and release. Nothing could humble this guy.

2. What traumatized him if anything did?

• There’s not enough information on it but the prestigious school he went to might have punished him and put him through distressing situations. We don’t know if it traumatized him or further amplified his behaviors.

3. Why did he keep going?

• It didn’t even seem like a form of self-sabotage, he just kept going because he was lustful. He never showed any regret or desire to change. He couldn’t control his nature I suppose, that’s what he wrote for the Duc.

Perhaps, I shouldn’t have bought a physical copy of this book. I’m not sure what I was expecting but it definitely not somebody’s twisted fantasy of torturing helpless innocents. I admit that I was too afraid to finish the book, me and North only read the introduction and summary, but the story of the book is extremely disturbing. 

4 seasons of sexual fantasies that steadily increase in violence? To actively fantasize about raping and cutting off people’s limbs is absolutely insane. It baffles me how someone could possibly be like this, how could someone be so immoral? It’s not even only in fantasy that De Sade did this. This guy actually went out and physically and sexually abused people. He was so pretentious that even years of prison couldn’t humble him, couldn’t change him. In one of his letters to his wife he described himself as someone to be served. It infuriates me. 

But there is something that is more shocking than the text itself and it’s the people who justify it. Years after De Sade’s death, there were secret book clubs that enjoyed his work, when it became more published, and popular, analysts broke down his texts, and even backed it up. Saying that De Sade is actually moral for writing something so disgusting because it shows the world what it means to be a horrible person so that they may be a better person? But that’s stretching it. Nothing about De Sade’s life nor texts gave the impression that he cared anything at all for society, he did not mean for himself to be deemed a “moralist.” All I can say is that the people justifying it are delusional and jealous they can’t commit just heinous acts in current society. It’s disgusting.

I didn’t enjoy the read and obviously it’s good I didn’t. But what I mean by enjoying is if I got something out of it. This book was pointless and should’ve been burnt along with the Bastille. De Sade should only be renowned as a crime against humanity just like Hitler. Perhaps, he didn’t kill as many people as Hitler did, but that doesn’t mean he’s better morally. Nobody would say Hitler did the world a good thing by giving an example of what not to do.

Extra : I’m contemplating if I should burn this book and I only bought the book because of the author’s last name “De Sade.” It reminds me of one of my favorite characters named Dominique De Sade which I believe her family was vaguely inspired by Marquis De Sade. I really don’t want anything to do with this book…

This was a crazy read, it was insanely cool in the worst way possible. It perfectly describes the way the powerful dehumanize those less than them, and in this case it was those that were financially unfortunate. To dehumanize them, deeming the poor as useless, hopeless, and bound to die anyways, they make the plan seem almost reasonable.

The plan, in summary, was to use poor children as resources- turning them into food and materials in order to benefit Ireland. The speaker claims that there is such a simple fix to the overwhelming wealth disparity and hunger in Ireland, and that is to kill off, and use the poor children that won’t be able to benefit the society. They say “But I am not in the least pain upon this matter, because it is very well known, that they are every day dying, and rotting, by cold and famine, and filth, and vermin, as fast as can be reasonably expected.” Implying that it’s better to use an use and kill unfortunate people because they’re going to die anyway.

Another aspect of this text I found interesting was the underlying smugness of the speaker, that they truly believe, this, is the best idea anyone could ever come up with. They say they’ve already calculated everything, even personally suggesting that the children should be bought, hunted, and cooked alive. Perhaps, from some perspective, it is a good economic idea, but that means morality must be given up in the scenario. If everybody was immoral then there’s nothing wrong with it in that society because nobody cares but society isn’t like that. And it’s fascinating because this idea would absolutely be indulged in by the powerful and apathetic. It’s a terrifying prospect, we’ve already crossed lines of immorality that have only been thought in fiction. If hatred and apathy continues to grow within society, it won’t be long before this proposal becomes almost ideal.

• Warning before reading, I read things from more of a story and literature point of view! So I apologize if I’m, at any point, disrespectful to these individuals. (Though I suppose we aren’t entirely sure if they lived or not)

On Mary Magdalene :

The introduction of The Gospel of Mary Magdalene revealed how the text was found, it was supposedly found in a wall by a peasant, then sold by a merchant to Dr. Carl Reinhardt. After 60 years, it was published in 1955, which is interesting because it seemed like something something was interfering with it’s publication. The pages were messed up, it was destroyed by water, world war one happened, the original person who was meant to publish it- passed away, then world war two, etc. Personally, I like to think it was some sort of divine intervention as I believe in every deity but anyways!

In the text, Jesus is referred to as “The Savior” Instead of his name, and the text begins with his speech. The first point he makes is that there is no sin! Which from a contemporary Christianity point of view, that’s crazy. All everybody talks about is sin, the current political issues are based upon what their Bible deems as sin. Except, in this, Jesus is stating that their is no sin. He says “The Good came among you to the things of every nature, in order to restore it to its root– that is why you [get] sick, and die.” I interpreted this as karma, bad things happen to bad people, and hopefully good things happen to good people. But Jesus mentioned that things are restored back to their root, their nature, I assume to create a balance. In nature, animals that help their families, pack, are often the ones that live longer. Although, this isn’t always true, lots of animals depend on tricking other organisms for survival like Chameleons, would that be considered a bad thing?

I’m interested in what Jesus means by no sin, sin is defined in the Bible as disobedience/straying from God in other words it’s “bad.” Does he mean that the way society defines sin is incorrect, that there is no inherent sin to avoid, just understanding of the universe, and oneself? I like to think that’s what he meant, to live life not praising

Oh my, I’ve written too much about Jesus, continuing to Mary! Mary was the only disciple that reacted positively to Jesus’ message, the other disciples were panicked- afraid to preach the gospel because they may end up crucified. Mary was quick to comfort everyone and tell them the most important thing was to preach what Jesus told them. But the disciples were unhappy that a woman was the first to understand Jesus’ teaching, how could a woman be better than a man? How could their savior care more about a woman than them? It seemed the other disciples were quite jealous of Mary’s intelligence but I’m glad Levi sided with Mary. I hope that they ended up preaching Jesus’ words without alteration, even if those after them altered it. But the Gospel of Judas suggests otherwise.

[ I really enjoyed this text! This expresses that Jesus was very much radical/progressive than what has been taught. I admire Jesus a lot ]

On Judas Iscariot :

This has to be one of my favorite texts, if this was written truthfully, I love the fact we get to see more on the interactions between Jesus, and Judas. As well as, Jesus’ personality. The text begins with Jesus seemingly laughing at a group of disciples, pointing out that they’re not praying for spiritual understanding but they’re praying to please God. “You are not doing this because of your own will but because it is through this that your God [will be] praised.” What’s interesting here is that Jesus says YOUR God, not God. Implying that they have their own idea of God , whether it’s the right or wrong one is not stated, but I like to think of two scenarios. One, they’re attempting to praise God but their view of God is delusional, and too idealistic. Or Two, Jesus believes that nobody views God the same way, and the idea of God is different to everybody. Either way, the disciples are praising (whichever) God for a personal gain.

Only Judas seems to view God and Jesus differently, he is the only one that spoke up, saying “You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not worthy to utter the name of the one who has sent you.” I believe when Jesus pulled Judas aside to tell him the secret of the heavens is because he is the only person who does not have a preconceived notion of God. He does not expect anything from God because he believes he doesn’t know or isn’t worthy enough to form an idea of who God may be.

Another fascinating part in the text is the dream the disciples had of priests, “[Some] sacrifice their own children, others their wives, in praise [and] in humility with each other; some sleep with men; some are involved in [slaughter]; some commit a multitude of sins and deeds of lawlessness. And the men who stand [before] the altar invoke your [name].” Oh! The irony of this line, how interesting it is that current society is like this. “Christians” that give their children to the priests, give up their wives for other desires, all to say they praise God with humility. Churches that hide and indulge murderers and rapists, all in the name of Jesus, all in the name of God.

Then Jesus tells the twelve that they have just seen themselves in the future. I wonder if these prophecies are meant to come true, that because Jesus had prophesized it, they had to carry it out. Same with Judas, Jesus says “You will become the thirteenth, and you will be cursed by the other generations– and you will come to rule over them. In the last days they will curse your ascent to the holy [generation].” Breaking it down, it is true that Judas is hated and cursed by everyone, even now, but he rules over everyone by his influence. Everyone was taught he was evil, that he betrayed Jesus, he has become an example of what not to be, a foil for the future generation of “Christians.” With this, it’s very easy to feel superior, to feel sinless compared to Judas, which easily leads to corruption. Thus, Judas has indirectly ruled over everyone immoral.

[ Extra : I love that Jesus just laughs about everyone, he sees through everyone’s facade, and finds it amusing. It was also interesting that Jesus specifically picked Judas and told him the secrets. It’s giving secret relationship… whatever kind ]