The Turner Diaries offers a unique perspective in comparison to the other apocalyptic stories we’ve read/watched thus far. Written as several journal entries, it brings us directly into the mind of a fundamentalist, Earl, who serves as our only biased source of information. This piece of historical fiction seems much like what a delusional, racist, paranoid fundamentalist would have imagined would result from the Civil Rights Movement – an apocalypse.
The cover of my copy of The Turner Diaries reads, “This book contains racist propaganda. The FBI said it was the blueprint for the Oklahoma City Bombing. Many would like it banned. It is being published to alert and warn America.” The intro to the book then explains that it is being published to warn us that there are people out there who think like this and that we should beware. It warns us that this is the enemy and this is how they think. To us, Earl represents the crazy fundamentalist that we can so easily criticize and call the enemy. But in the diegesis of this book, Earl represents the Christ-like hero who brings about a revolution and the new utopian world – the “New Jerusalem.” Tired of the oppressive environment he lives in, the Cohen Act sparks him to join the underground opposition group, the Organization. When I first read that he was so opposed to the Cohen Act, I pictured him as a stereotypical NRA member, Tea Partier, extremist Republican. And what else would a trigger-happy extremist want other than to overthrow the authorities that took away his gun? Through this point of view, I was not able to relate to Earl’s exact cause or opinions and rather see him as an unreliable narrator. Yet at the same time, his dualistic, hypocritical political views also forced me to see the hypocrisies of the System. In an attempt to create a more utopian society (i.e. a more peaceful and egalitarian one), the government made it illegal to possess firearms, among other things. However, in doing this, they limited freedoms and thus became oppressive. It made me think- with our current understanding human nature, can peace and freedom ever coexist?
This conflict between peace and freedom also arose in the film, “Colossus: The Forbin Project,” which I saw at the Doomsday Fest on Saturday. Colossus is a highly intelligent machine that was created for America’s defense in the height of the Cold War. Its essential purpose was to prevent war. As is expected of an apocalyptic film, this machine soon took control. It became so intelligent that it no longer obeyed the humans. Rather, the humans had to obey it. In a speech it demands to be broadcast to the world, Colossus begins by saying, “This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace.” It explains that it will not permit war and that it will solve human problems of “famine, overpopulation, and disease.” It ends the speech by saying “You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind as to be dominated by others of your species. Your choice is simple.” Colossus’ rule over mankind calls into question the “New Jerusalem” that God sets up in the Book of Revelation. New Jerusalem is a place free of famine and disease, just like the world that Colossus plans to create. And yet, at the end of the movie, the characters are mortified by the prospect of their future under Colossus’ rule. This leads me to wondering, just because God carries certain benevolent connotations among believers, does that not mean that his eternal rule might also be oppressive?
