Inside The Forest

Just when I thought this class couldn’t get any more interesting, we were assigned “Industrial Society and Its Future”; Kacyznski’s manifesto behind his 1978-1995 bombing-spree. Compared to other works we’ve reviewed in class, this is one that from reading around I’ve gathered to be taken much more seriously. Sure, there’s instances where academia labels Kacyznski’s work as “pedestrian”, and it’s easy to dismiss the work because Kacyznski is a crazy that used his ideas to kill people; but this doesn’t change the fact that he’s made an argument, and a well-written one at that. This response will serve as both a review and evaluation of Kacyznski’s manifesto, whether or not it holds up in today’s climate.

One of the things Kacyznski effectively does is throw a metaphorical wrecking ball against virtually every aspect of modern society and life. He doesn’t just make the case that modern life is bad, but that we should return to the past, as shown in paragraph 45

“There is good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less stress and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than modern man is.”

He immediately follows with this statement:

“It is true that not all was sweetness and light in primitive societies. Abuse of women was common among the Australian aborigines, transexuality was fairly common among some of the American Indian tribes. But it does appear that GENERALLY SPEAKING the kinds of problems that we have listed in the preceding paragraph were far less common among primitive peoples than they are in modern society.”

Sure, not all was good in primitive society, Kaczysnki would acknowledge. But when provided the opportunity to “go back” or stay in our modern timeline, Kacyzynski would definitely choose the former with what we’ve gathered; but why? Kacyzsnki makes this point by citing concepts such as “Oversocialization” and “Surrogate Activities” to dismiss our current state. I think he has a point, we’ve lost considerable amounts of freedom not because of politics, but technological changes that are able to transcend legislative and political boundaries. Kacyznski also makes this point, we lose more and more power as technology advances. This is a huge problem if we want for society to be harmonious. If power is concentrated in the hands of fewer people, this puts normal individuals at risk of exploitation and worse.

I’m not a luddite, but I think there needs to be a reconciliation of both nature and technology. Kaczysnki points out that the good parts of technology will inevitably lead to bad counterparts, I would also point out the opposite. Technology is as effective good as it is bad, so our goal should be containing it and utilizing it to the extent that we can lead healthy lives. 

Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” or “My Struggle/War” is the central manifesto of Hitler’s National Socialism (or nazism). Being the ideological blueprint of one of the most murderous ideologies of the 20th century, I found it only fitting that we were assigned it for our FORBIDDEN TEXTS class. It’s a large text so our professor rightly split it into four chapters through groups. With two other classmates, we were assigned chapters 4-8, and I certainly have my own thoughts on this portion of the text. To clarify, I did not read all of “Mein Kamp”f. While I believe I have a general upstanding of 20th century history and Hitler’s poisonous ideology, there is probably much more I have missed because I have not read all of the book. With that said however, there is still plenty to gather from these four chapters, and I felt that I closed the book with an adequate understanding of Hitler’s National Socialism.

This section to me must have been one of the more reflective parts of the book because of Hitler’s commitment to retelling history and lecturing the leader of both his life and German current events, this is fitting however since the book’s title literally translates to “MY struggle”. Chapter four introduces much of the core tenets of National Socialism, such as lebensraum, Judeo-Bolshevism, racial purity, and emphasis on German national unity. Chapter five integrates these values with Hitler’s personal experiences leading up to and during the Great War, with an extensive analysis on left wing groups and their relationship to the German working class. While Hitler is a fervent anti-communist, it’s important to understand the socialism part in “National Socialism”, and what Hitler’s ideas were for the working class juxtaposed to contemporary left wing beliefs.

In chapters six, Hitler is substantially less reflective than previous chapters and the closely related chapter 7, yet both chapter six and seven focus extensively on propaganda, six more so on the dynamics of propaganda versus seven’s emphasis on the employment of it. Its implementation against Germany within the Great War by the allies and later Germany’s domestic population is a source of much anger for Hitler. He ascribes the sabotaging of an almost-won war to disillusioned communists and Jews, the latter of whom he states in chapter seven as having totally taken control over the German war machine.

“In the business world the situation was even worse. Here the Jews had actually become ‘indispensable’. Like leeches, they were slowly sucking the blood from the pores of the national body. By means of newly floated War Companies an instrument had been discovered whereby all national trade was throttled so that no business could be carried on freely.”

Chapter seven provides an excellent insight on Hitler’s antisemitism, much of it being rooted in his bitterness from the Great War. To justify Germany’s loss of the war, Hitler uses both the political left and Jews as a scapegoat with a vehement fervor. They must not be forgiven, they are the enemy, they must pay for what they’ve done. They must be destroyed.

“There is no such thing as coming to an understanding with the Jews. It must be the hard-and-fast ‘Either-Or.’”

Hitler didn’t become an antisemite in one day, and it’s not as if all of his concerns are illegitimate. His approach from total apathy and even dismissal to becoming the arch antisemite was a process that must be analyzed. This is why understanding forbidden texts is so important. Without critical analysis and comprehension, we refuse to address the problems of history and create the conditions for an even worse future. While history does not repeat itself, we certainly don’t want it to rhyme either. This is a bad book in both writing and meaning, but it’s still worthwhile.

It’s not hard for a story to lose its real meaning and to be lost to the confines of time even when written and recorded, as even then, its presence can be overshadowed or even completely neglected. Such is the fate of Felix Salten’s “Bambi”, subjected to a retelling by Disney that provides a whimsical and more sanitized depiction of what is a cold, sober, and very lonely story.

What immediately sets Salten’s and Disney’s Bambi apart is that Salten’s book does not have a happy ending. Instead of standing triumphantly above the herd, Salten’s Bambi is overseen by Mosquitos who sneer at his state of affairs, left with no one by his side as he grows both old and alone. Despite being at the end, this theme of coldness presents itself throughout the entire novel.

“Yes, life was difficult and full of danger. No matter what might happen, he would learn to endure it all.”

Page 55 of The Original Bambi, The Story of a Life in the Forest by Felix Salten

Although Disney’s Bambi also captures the scene where animals are shot by hunters in the meadow, Salten’s book provides a more vivid and gruesome portrayal of events. While Disney showed the moments where a pheasant is shot down, Salten goes in depth to explain the impact of the hunt upon the animals:

“Someone was calling to him with a broken voice. Bambi obeyed involuntarily and found an opening at once where a small creature stood up with great effort in front of him. It was Friend Hare’s wife who had called.
‘Could you help me a little?’ She asked.
Bambi looked at her and was shattered. Her hind leg dangled lifelessly in the snow, and her warm blood oozed from a wound and caused the snow to melt and turn red.”

Page 77 of The Original Bambi, The Story of a Life in the Forest by Felix Salten

Importantly, the meadow seemingly represents a trench like environment where death presents itself in mass events, similar to the charges and mass assaults of trench warfare. I believe Friend Hare’s wife as mentioned above represents a shell shocked soldier endlessly roaming amongst the planes waiting for death to overtake him. While Salten did not serve during World War One, it’s easy that his story was certainly influenced by the cynicism of the interwar period.

Salten’s book is certainly grim, but its darkness is what also empowers it. It’s a product of Salten’s life experiences as reinforced by the introduction, Bambi almost appears to be a representation of a young Salten, lost in the urban forest that is Vienna and forced to tread his own path. Unlike Disney’s, Salten’s Bambi isn’t a story of overcoming, it’s a story of survival in a very cold world.

In life, the question of “What does death look like?” is one that seldom, but still appears in discourse. While much response is focused on the concept of the afterlife, little attention is brought onto the earthly form of death. People die, and this fact is simple to overlook, especially in large numbers. The Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin puts it best, “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic.”. Yet our lives matter, and this importance ascribed to us is what makes us human, it’s impossible for us to overlook the meaning of death in good faith.

Places like the Holocaust Museum are a sobering yet necessary reminder of what death looks like. You won’t see bodies (in the exhibits), but you’ll see traces of death surrounding you. From history lessons to material evidence, the Holocaust Museum boasts a wide array of items and exhibits to open your eyes on this massive tragedy. Each item showcased contains a life force that was removed from it, from the carts detainees stayed in to the shoes they wore before being ruthlessly killed, or maybe it’s the pictures of the faces of those whose lives were shortened so early?

This trip was a humbling experience, it left me feeling thankful. I witnessed the reality of death and while it is a cold feeling, it’s also one that leaves you more aware than you were prior, even with knowledge of the Holocaust. Because even if you know death, you don’t really know death; you probably haven’t felt it. And while the latter is true in my case, it’s still observable all around us. Yet, it’s important to not let this be something to demoralize us, places like the Holocaust Museum serve as lessons. Let this be a way to energize us to cherish life and prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again.

History is filled with lies, so much so that our very conceptualization of it could very possibly be one as well. Yet, there aren’t many lies that spawn as much hatred, vitriol, and bitterness as the Protocols did. Despite being repeatedly debunked over a century after its publication, the Protocols still remain relevant to this day, why is this? What are the motivations that push a blatantly false hoax? In order to understand this, it’s crucial to contextualize the protocols.

The Russian Empire, par with other regimes of its time, has a long history of hostility towards the Jewish people. Antisemitic measures by the Tsarist regime gradually escalated in hostility, beginning from the Pale of Settlement which restricted Jewish movement into the Russian interior by Catharine II. Tsar Nicholas I’s rule was exceptionally antisemitic when compared with previous rulers, seeking to assimilate Jews through measures such as forced conscription as one of his first acts as Tsar, as well as suppression of Jewish culture through mandating state schooling for Jews. 

While Nicholas I suppressed the Jews, Tsar Alexander II had a slightly more liberal policy towards the Jews, as seen through permitting them to travel outside the Pale of Settlement (should they attend state schooling). Yet despite minor reforms, state policy towards the Jews was still repressive, and escalated with Alexander II’s death and the rule of his successor, Tsar Alexander III. Alexander III, either mistakenly or intentionally, used the assassination of his father Alexander II to crack down on Jews, overshadowing much of his father’s reforms. 

The Empire began its move towards a more genocidal policy, Jews were pushed out by the millions from almost every corner of Russia. Pogroms would follow this intensification of antisemitic policy through the 1903 Pesach Pogrom, similarly the Protocols were published in a nationalist newspaper titled “Znamya” in the same year. With such a large amount of suppression by the state, many Jews were left with no other choice but to side with left-leaning political groups and parties, giving rise to the “Judeo-Bolshevism” hoax that is widely known today.

“Judeo Bolshevism” was proverbial gasoline to an already burning fire. With Russians already skeptical of Jews at best due to state policy, many were inflamed with rage towards the prospects of Jewish global dominance, justified by the over-representation of Jews in leftist revolutionary groups. However, this is a prime example of a “self-fulfilling prophecy”, where an issue is manufactured from an already artificial problem. Over-representation isn’t a cause, but a reaction to an openly hostile state.

With that said, it’s important to note that neither of these movements were the solution as well. While the Bolshevik government implemented a harsh policy against antisemitic and other forms of discrimination, this didn’t stop the “reds” in engaging in pogroms themselves. Even the “Judeo-Bolshevists” often blamed are simply individuals with Jewish ancestry, disregarding and in some cases even disowning their heritage.

Upon closer inspection, both Judeo-Bolshevism and the Protocols can with ease be exposed as the insidious lie that it is. Jews were as much victims to Bolshevik terror as anyone else, especially proven later during Stalin’s purging of Jews after the conclusion of WWII decades later. “Judeo Bolshevism”, thus, isn’t a sound theory in any sense of the word, and it’s time to put this sick lie to rest.

On the 14th of July, 1789, a band of malcontents and “sans-culottes” (commoners) in a bid to revolt against King Louis XVI’s regime, stormed and looted the Bastille fortress. While the Marquis de Sade was able to escape the onslaught, upon returning, he found that his scroll which included the now published contents of “The 120 Days of Sodom” had vanished. Despite Sade never seeing this text again for the rest of his life (and for the better, perhaps), the document had not vanished, but changed hands. Thus began a centuries-spanning search for the now mystified work of Sade’s. What the Holy Grail was to King Arthur, Sade’s book was to disturbed perverts. 

Despite being completely unhinged, Sade was not alone in hoisting the banner of the libertines, being both preceded and succeeded by various other writers with similar ideas in regards to sex. These libertines reject morality and engage in total sexual hedonism, either engaging or fantasizing in these desires of theirs. This movement was especially prevalent in both France and Britain during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. Libertines are often credited with being an indirect byproduct of the Baroque movement, an era within Europe and especially France that saw an immense development of the arts and literature. In a stark contrast with the religiosity of the Baroque movement as characterized by its gothic architecture, and emphasis on beauty, Libertines sought a total embrace of their depravity. 

The Libertine Movement would especially gain notoriety in the 19th century, and Sade’s work would be mystified. The looter of the Sade’s scroll Arnoux de Saint-Maximin sold it to the Marquis de Villeneuve-Trans, who held onto it for a period of 100 years. During this time, the rumor of an erotic and provocative writing by the Marquis de Sade would slowly rear its head in PervertWorld. After being sold again, its current holder Iwan Bloch then published the scroll as a novel in 1904, who then sold it to descendants of Sade’s family. This adventure would not end yet, as their publisher Jean Grouet swindled them and smuggled the script through the Swiss border, where it would reside up to 2014 upon being auctioned off to a private foundation. The document has then been acquired by the French government due to fraud charges with the foundation’s director, finally(?) being held in a secure place. 

Given the interest shown in the original scroll, Sade’s novel spawned much attention, from both PervertWorld and sensible critics. This literary work is the Prima-Donna of Libertine writings, perhaps being the most depraved and disturbing of all of them. For better or worse, the Marquis de Sade is a name now known in history, and his novel certainly fits within the current social climate where norms are increasingly called into question. Perhaps Sade’s book is a representation of the total elimination of said social norms, and should serve as more of a cautionary tale than anything else through a modern lens.

When literature is forbidden, it can often be the result of many reasons; some political or cultural. Rarely does a book, especially one written in 1785, spawn so much (albeit rightful) disgust and outrage that it essentially “disappeared” from the literary world, only to reemerge like a phoenix from the ashes in our modern era. When describing this abhorrent writing, terms such as “loathsome” and “awful” may come to mind, but this absolutist mindset may prevent readers from acquiring a legitimate understanding of Sade’s intentions in writing this book. In this blog, we’ll be diving headfirst into one of the most disgusting literary works ever conceived of, and attempt to “reason” with Sade. 

Written in 37 continuous days, “The 120 Days of Sodom” contains 600 passions carried out by a band of four wealthy and influential men designated by themselves and Sade’s narration as “libertines”. They undergo a meticulous plan to entertain their sickest desires through recruiting over 30 (with a vast sum more rejected) individuals, adults and children alike with a setting in a remote castle in Switzerland. One of the things that may both worry and intrigue the reader is the amount of precision used in describing the efforts these liberties underwent to conceal their crimes, despite the means they maintain which could be used to excuse their actions as the Duke explains, stating that “Only the law stands in my way, but I defy it – my gold and my influence place me beyond the reach of those crude scales meant only for the common people.”. (10) Power is a recurring theme with the liberties, and often manifests itself through their actions within the 120 days. While power is ever present, its status can also appear contradictory to readers, from the duc championing his designation of “slaves” ascribed to the women he exploits to submitting himself entirely to the whims of nature. (4,10) With this, and many other instances, it’s hard for many to determine whether or not Sade endorsed or condemned these four libertines and sought to use them to describe a moral. 

Whether or not Sade’s book contained a valuable message hidden beneath a mountain of filth doesn’t excuse that the story was designed to please as outright stated by Sade himself. To conclude, I will leave this quote by Sade himself:

“No doubt many of the various excesses you shall see depicted shall displease you, we know, but there shall be others that inflame you to the point of spilling your come, and that is all we require – if we had not said everything, analyzed everything, how do you think we could have guessed what appeals to you? It is for you to take what you want and leave the rest – someone else shall do the same and, little by little, everything shall have found its rightful place.”

Page 59, The 120 Days of Sodom

The Gospel of Judas, like the Gospel of Mary Magadalene, is a non-canonical Gnostic work that seeks to reveal a part of Jesus that Gnostics believe to be misinterpreted or ignored. Yet, the Gospel of Judas goes even further through its questioning of not just Christian doctrine, but the faith itself. From Jesus to Judas, the entire text just seems warped when taking into consideration other writings and understandings especially from canonical writings. From a general glance, it’s easy to see why this is a forbidden text.

Dating of this text varies around the mid to late second century, an era where Gnostic texts would begin to be created and gain traction. Gnostics, unlike other Christians, find that the path to salvation lies in transcending the mortal body instead of forgiveness through Christ. The Gospel of Judas is a stark contrast from other Christian writings, in that it can be interpreted almost as a repudiation of the faith itself. In it, Jesus rejects the God the disciples worships, and offers Judas an alternative through Gnosticism. Through this, Judas becomes a conduit for Christ for ascend his mortal body through a sacrifice as shown when he asks Judas to “sacrifice the man that clothes me”.

When looking at this, the text seems confusing. The in-depth explanation of cosmology would easily puzzle any mainstream Christian reading for the first time. This was the effect of much of Gnostic non-canonical works, which the early church would begin to persecute due to it being found as heretical. Legitimate or not, the Gospel of Judas was subject to suppression and an eventual disappearance from the public eye until almost two millennia later. This text certainly does prove its controversy through its unorthodox propositions and main ideas, and it’s no surprise that the church took action against this Gospel.

In order to understand what makes a text forbidden and why, we should take a look into one of the earliest examples of the phenomenon: The Gospel of Mary Magdalene. Little known about the text apart from what can be inferred from both the contents and condition of text, as a sizeable chunk of the text is still missing, perhaps lost forever to time.

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene contains a great deal of unorthodox elements when compared to other Christian writings. From questions on the nature of sin itself to the role of women in the faith, it is hard to associate this text with the rest of the bible, especially noting the contradictions it seemingly has. While it isn’t known whether or not the text was actively banned after its release, Mary Magdalene herself has often been misunderstood by many Christian figures. This could possibly be the reason behind the text’s eventual disappearance from history. Part of the text I was most impressed by was Chapter 9, depicting a defiant Mary Magdalene in the face of Peter. In this, she appears as a leader like the rest of the disciples among Christ. It then begs the question if there are other texts like the Gospel of Mary which show how active she was with Jesus.

I do not know if this text is explicitly “forbidden”, though it is certainly “taboo” when compared to other Christian writings. I think that it is entirely possible this text was the victim of an early censorship campaign due to its contents. Perhaps clergy may have seen the writing as harmful without considering its interpretation. Either way, this text stands out from the rest and it’s a great start to the class as we look to understand the nature of controversy and taboos.