The 2011 Norway attacks acted as an exposure technique for Andrew Berwick’s 1,500-page manifesto. 90 minutes before his car bomb exploded, killing eight, Berwick emailed his work to over 1,000 addresses found on Facebook. His domestic attack continued at a summer camp for the youth division of the Norwegian Labor Party, where he killed 67. His manifesto, entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, was largely plagiarized and poorly-written. He borrowed full sections from the Unabomber Manifesto, replacing the hatred for “cultural Marxists” and “leftists” with “black people” and “Muslims.” The chosen year, 2083, acts as Berwick’s goal date for the total cleansing of Europe. 2083, the 400-year anniversary of the Battle of Vienna, the last major Ottoman invasion, represents the desired undoing of the Muslim “threat,” according to Berwick. Berwick’s impressively-long but poorly-executed manifesto only gained attention as a result of his terrorist attacks. The deaths of innocent people aggressively emphasized Berwick’s anti-immigrant, Islamophobic beliefs.
Category: Books
The Satanic Verses, published in 1988 by British writer Salman Rushdie, immediately received backlash from Muslims as it openly criticized the faith and blasphemed against Muhammad. While the book was impressively written, receiving multiple literary awards, it led to intense political debate. In 1989, the Supreme Leader of Iran issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s punishment. As Rushdie was born Muslim, the book is a clear form of apostasy, punishable by death in the Muslim faith. The British government supplied Rushdie with years of security details. While Rushdie avoided violent retaliation, there were multiple attacks on people connected to the book, including the murder of a translator and the shooting of a publisher. Britain’s choice to protect their own citizen was seen as an extreme rejection of the Muslim faith, escalating the tension with Iran. There was a large push for the fatwa to be rescinded; however, as it is the legal opinion of a specific person, that was now dead, it could not truly be undone. The Iranian government later said they would “neither support nor hinder assassination operations on Rushdie.”
The Turner Diaries, a fictional novel about a revolution in the US, was written in 1978 and looked fifteen years into the future to a time where white supremacists are taking over the nation. According to the narrator, the Cohen Act has unjustly made all firearms illegal and gave way to intense gun raids and the arrest of 800,000 people. The book supports the white supremacists as they violently object to losing their guns. The main character, Earl Turner, engages actively in the destruction of government and all minorities, proudly flying a suicide plane into the Pentagon. As part of the “Organization,” Turner is anti-Semitic, racist and homophobic. The Turner Diaries has been linked to multiple terrorist attacks, most notably the Oklahoma City Bombing. Timothy McVeigh’s bombing closely resembled one in the book and he was found with pages of it following the attack. This forbidden work differs from the majority of others as it is not a manifesto or any kind of explanation of one’s beliefs. The Turner Diaries was highly influential as it appears as a novel, making it easier to understand and reason with. It is presented in a more interesting way, making it much more dangerous considering people are more likely to read it in this manner.
- Hitler attended bourgeois meetings and stated that they gave “the same impression on me as in my youth the prescribed spoonful of cod-liver oil…tastes terrible.”
- Hitler comments on the lack of diversity in the people attending certain political rallies saying, “what struck you at once was the homogenous solidity of the audience.” This is ironic as he desired an ethnically “pure” country of blonde-haired, blue-eyed Germans.
- Hitler reveals his own fervor for Germany and rejects the boring speeches that plague the political rallies he attends. He objected with the blatant remark, “and this was supposed to serve for the glorification of a heroic struggle on the part of hundreds of thousands of Prussians and Germans? Phooey, I say, and again phooey!”
- National Socialist meetings were not peaceful, many opponents gathered to scream and often incite violence. Hitler reveled in this attention.
- “The people came in as our enemies, and when they left, if they were not our supporters, at least they had grown thoughtful.” Hitler praises his own abilities and how moving his speeches were.
- Hitler loves any attention, “it makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again.”
- Hitler’s idea for a “monitor service” of young men who protect the meetings by attacking people that interrupt (seems like censorship to me).
- “They were imbued with the doctrine that, as long as reason was silent and violence had the last word, the best weapon of defense lay in attack.” With this statement, violence is the answer. This parallels the future use of the Gestapo to handle the dirty work of Nazis.
- Hitler discusses the opinions surrounding the party flag. White is “suitable for chaste virgins’ clubs,” not a political movement.
- His flag idea is used: a red background (social idea of the movement), a white disk (nationalistic idea), and a black swastika in the middle. The swastika stands for the “mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man and the victory of the idea of creative work… that always will be anti-Semitic.”
- The Paris Agreement is released; Germany must pay reparations for the world war. Hitler calls it “ridiculous” but fails to elaborate.
- “Your heart almost rejoiced at such a revival of old war experiences” -Hitler liked watching the monitor service guys fight people at rallies
- “Here the general conviction prevails that such a unification brings an enormous increase in strength, and that the otherwise weak little groups have thereby suddenly become a power. This, however, is usually false.” Hitler rejects unification between groups and argues that the strongest leader will come about in the fight for power.
- “It must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to arrive at the same goal: the most powerful and swiftest will in this way will be recognized, and will be the victor.” Hitler does not believe in compromise or teamwork; the strongest man should be free to prove himself rather than bargain with similar groups.
- “And if there were really one healthy man among the cripples, he used up all his strength just to keep the others on their feet, and in this way was crippled himself.” Hitler is an ableist and finds that teamwork hinders the people at the top.
Copies of The Anarchist Cookbook were hunted by the CIA and FBI during the 1970s following its publication by William Powell. The book is infamous for its drug recipes and directions for building explosives; however, it does not truly discuss the meaning and goals of anarchy. Powell compiled these tips and instructions as a teenager and later revealed remorse for his work, even trying to remove it from publication. Powell spends only a couple pages demonstrating his ideas about anarchy and the politics of the time, which were driven almost entirely by the Vietnam War. According to the author, the book was not written to condone violence against the government, but to teach the common man how to oppose communism and fascism. As the Vietnam War was highly debated and brought about the pacifist movement, The Anarchist Cookbook was viewed as a prominent threat to society.
In the work, Powell discusses means of retaliation and opposition in extreme manners. He gives detailed instructions for the building of bombs, tips on how to shoplift and destroy cars, and facts about weapons and devices that could be used for or against them. Powell’s writing is shocking as he appears to have morals, even as he calls for the explosion of vehicles when necessary. He states that “the revolutionary will steal from large corporations, and the common thief will steal from anyone.” Powell sees the difference between random acts of law-breaking and illegal acts with purpose; you do not steal to gain something for yourself, you steal as a means of sabotage against overly powerful corporations. In addition, Powell rebukes certain actions as they fail to bring about change and instead, simply hurt people. He says “not only did they kill themselves, but also some innocent people.” Powell’s understanding of anarchy does not include the complete destruction of law and society; it involves the use of violence and illegal actions when necessary against the true target, not the innocent. As the book includes intensely illegal facts, information and recipes, its censorship is understandable and required. However, the book is not a disturbing discussion of anarchy. It contains safety instructions and genuine tips to help the people, even as they engage in contraband actions.
Marquis de Sade, whether on purpose or by accident, made a profound statement on the corruption of France in the 1790s with the writing of The 120 Days of Sodom. However, de Sade’s pornographic words hinder his argument against society; it is difficult to find credibility in a man capable of writing such impure things. Upon looking beyond such indecent scenes, there is potential for a meaningful display of opinion from de Sade concerning the tension within France.
The four men appear to represent different aspects of corruption within society; the bishop stands for the church, infamous for sex scandals, the duke illustrates the nobility and thus the government of the time, the judge portrays both justice and law, and the banker displays the role of business and wealth. In his explicit tales of relations within the castle, de Sade effectively presents his distaste for the church. He recognizes the hypocrisy of the church as these “holy” men take advantage of children. De Sade further presents his anger in writing about the duke and thus, the nobility. France was dominated by the nobility, creating the wealth gap and inequality that soon fueled the French Revolution. Furthermore, de Sade comments on the monarchy through the parallels to the castle. Within the castle, four men control every aspect of the others’ lives. As most of the children are tortured and killed in the end, de Sade presents the idea that monarchy leads to the destruction of the people. With the inclusion of the judge, de Sade may have been commenting on the legal aspects of corruption. For instance, until 1832, the age of consent was eleven. With this, plenty of the cruel sex acts within the castle were legal, showing the failures of government. The banker exemplifies the freedom that comes with wealth; these vicious men were able to hide their atrocities from society by living in a secluded castle. As his writing is highly provocative, it is difficult to see beyond the surface of the words, and truly grasp his statements about society. The writing itself is forbidden for its descriptions of sexual violence and deviance; however, the deeper meaning was illicit in its rejection of French society.
Marquis de Sade, to whom we owe the term “sadism,” is notorious for his real and fantasized sex scandals and provocative writings. He was frequently imprisoned for such acts, including masturbating over a statue of Jesus, and was known to have no regard for social or religious law. With the writing of The 120 Days of Sodom and his other scandalous works, de Sade solidified his reputation as a sexual deviant. As his works are highly disturbing, scholars and readers continuously question his sanity. While it is known that his mental health deteriorated during his imprisonment, there is no evidence of mental disorder aside from his controversial works. Written in 37 days, this work covers 120 days and over 300 pages, though the original copy was written on tiny strips of paper glued together. The original scroll was declared a national treasure of France in 2017, preventing it from leaving the country or being sold again. This brings further question to the book’s value as it has been and remains banned in many countries. Scholars argue whether the work was characteristic of France in the 1790s or if its content should be highly judged as society would deem it horrifying in modern times. The events described in The 120 Days of Sodom loosely match and exaggerate true pieces of de Sade’s life. The “little girls affair” parallels the day to day actions within the book as children are used for sexual acts and continuously violated by adults. As The 120 Days of Sodom is one of the most illicit books in history, it forces its way into the discussion of freedom of speech. Should people be free to publish works as provocative as this? De Sade’s motivation can be argued as both for and against freedom of speech. In one sense, he may be writing this as an example of freedom of speech, saying that he should be allowed to write whatever he wants, no matter how disturbing. On the other hand, de Sade could be using his twisted imagination to write something so extreme, that society will be forced to see regulation of speech as a necessity. De Sade’s personal history leads us to believe that he truly ignored all social norms and laws and felt no remorse for his words and actions.