Our Two Towers

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
| Our two towers Winning the war on terrorism means confronting Western versions of Sarumanby Gene Edward Veith

J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings triology is about the epic struggle of “the free folk of the West” to ward off and defeat the temptations and the enemies that would destroy them. As such, the movie version has had a powerful cultural resonance for the free folk undergoing the war on terrorism. Now all three movies are available in extended DVD versions, forming a single 12-hour saga that sheds light on one of the strangest phenomena of our current war: the alliance between our left-wing intellectual establishment and radical Islam.

In Tolkien’s epic, all of Middle Earth is under attack. Sauron, the demonic Dark Lord whom the free folk assumed had been defeated long ago, is back in force, determined to wipe out everything good in Middle Earth and make it like his own hellish realm of Mordor.

But Sauron has an ally from within Middle Earth, who represents that civilization’s highest accomplishments. Saruman the White is the head of Gandalf’s order. He is an intellectual, a scientist, a technologist. Saruman decides to support Sauron. Whereas Sauron uses wraiths, dragons, monsters, and his own occult powers, Saruman uses the power of scientific rationalism. He genetically engineers a breed of super-Orcs. He invents gunpowder to blow up fortress walls. He cuts down the forest as fuel for his factories, turning his own once-beautiful realm into a Mordor-like wasteland.

The “Two Towers” of the trilogy’s second title refer to the Dark Tower of Sauron and the White Tower of Saruman, the two different but allied threats against which the free folk must contend.

Tolkien was not writing political allegory, but similar alliances have characterized the last two centuries. When Hitler assaulted Western civilization, he had enthusiastic allies in Western intellectuals, such as the existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger, the modernist poet Ezra Pound, the deconstructionist literary critic Paul de Man, and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. With the next threat of Communism, Western intellectuals and artists were even more open in siding with the Soviets working to bury us.

Today, much of the Western intellectual establishment supports the Islamic terrorists. This goes beyond simple opposition to the war in Iraq. (Tolkien also depicts the response of hopeless pacifism, as in King Theoden—still under the influence of Saruman’s agent Griga Wormtongue —when he laments, “Hasn’t there been enough killing?” and refuses to attack the enemies at his door.) The hardcore leftists want the Iraqi insurgents to win. Filmmaker Michael Moore calls them “minute men” and “freedom fighters.” Left-wing websites celebrate the killing of American soldiers and claim solidarity with Muslim revolutionaries. Some of the most virulent anti-Israeli rhetoric can be found in American and European universities.

Western leftists are feminist, pro-gay, and morally permissive. And yet, they are willing to make common cause with radical Islamists who brutally repress women, punish homosexuals by execution, and impose the harshest of legalistic codes. Just as Sauron would eat Saruman for dinner, Western intellectuals would not last one day under an Islamist republic. And yet, the hatred Western intellectuals have for the civilization that brought them into existence is so great that they will embrace its every enemy. How can this be?

University professors and students have long been deconstructing the great achievements of Western civilization, chanting in anti–liberal arts demonstrations, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western civ has got to go.” The vogue of multiculturalism has meant criticizing Western culture in favor of non-Western cultures. Many Islamist terrorists are graduates of these universities, which schooled them well in the evils of the West.

One clue might be found in the terrorist taunt that “we love death more than you love life.”

Those who are willing to kill others and themselves to make an abstract political statement share a mindset with those who see nothing wrong with aborting children, euthanizing sick people, and using human embryos for medical experiments. The Saurons and Islamists hold to a religious nihilism, full of a spiritual energy that is wholly negative. The Sarumans and left-wing intellectuals hold to a secular nihilism that is equally negative. The free folk must confront the two towers, both the Minaret and the Ivory Tower. —•
 
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Fanstatic!!!

Just think how great the world would be if everyone spent as much of their energy fighting evil as they do fighting those who fight evil.
 
40.png
Jay74:
Fanstatic!!!

Just think how great the world would be if everyone spent as much of their energy fighting evil as they do fighting those who fight evil.
There are reasons why the classics (even modern ones) are, well, the classics.
 
gilliam,

There are also very signifcant reasons why Tolkien’s writing has come to such global prominence at this time–as a faithful Catholic, Tolkein wrote a decisively Catholic epic of good versus evil and most people watching those films have no clue of the Christianity built into the story.

Likewise, there are also significant reasons why Mel Gibson spent 25 years of his early career in order to reach a point where he could make the most Catholic of all films, the Passion of the Christ.

The fact that four fantastic Catholic films have come upon the world over the last three years is no accident.
 
Saruman, was an example here of progre-islamism here in Europe or liberals in America, and they´re very dangerous, I remember very well, the muslims clothes of the Sauron´s warriors, very interesting and very current this book. greetings
 
40.png
gilliam:
Left-wing websites celebrate the killing of American soldiers and claim solidarity with Muslim revolutionaries. •
Which websites would those be exactly?
 
Moral depravity darkens the intellect and weakens the will. We have many that just do not know what is good and bad anymore.
 
One of the characteristics of Mordor and the Dead Marshes is the extreme environmental degradation that has ocurred. The rivers are polluted, the forests have been cut down and fumes constantly choke anyone moving around.
*Here nothing lived, not even the leprous growths that feed on rottenness. The gasping pools were choked with ash and crawling muds, sickly white and grey, as if the mountains had vomited the filth of their entrails upon the lands about. High mounds of crushed and powdered rock, great cones of earth fire-blasted and poison-stained, stood like an obscene graveyard in endless rows, slowly revealed in the reluctant light. *
Code:
                *They had come to the desolation that lay before Mordor: the lasting monument to the dark labour of its slaves that should endure when all their purposes were made void; a land defiled, diseased beyond all healingunless the Great Sea should enter in and wash it with oblivion. "I feel sick," said Sam. Frodo did not speak.* (II, 302)
Clearly Sauron represents the giant polluting corporations that rape and plunder the earth. The free peoples of the West represents civic society resisting this despoilation of land and people.

Saruman represents those politcians in the midst of civic societies, bought and paid for by the corporations, who seek to persuade people to consent to their own exploitation-

"Another dangerous attribute of Saruman is the intoxicating sweetness of his voice, which survives the destruction of his army and the breaking of his magic staff. It is possible to read this as a reflection of the dangerous charisma of world leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini, who led many down the path of Evil with their rhetorical skill. But that would be to ignore Tolkien’s warning and confuse applicability for allegory. The music of Saruman’s voice simply mirrors the allure of the temptation to which he succumbed. As Elrond said, “nothing is evil in the beginning,” and, even as Saruman surrounded himself with Orcs and fire, he clung to the thought that his vision for Middle-earth’s future was the correct one, that he was embracing the inevitable, and that his efforts would make the world better. Similar things have been said of laissez-faire capitalism. Tolkien regarded that logic as easy and empty: a sign that Saruman had relaxed his vigilance and blinded his imagination to the monstrosity of his actions. He would have asked all who follow the footsteps of Saruman to remember Aragorn’s words: “good and ill have not changed since yesteryear, nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man’s part to discern them.”
[greenbooks.theonering.net/guest/files/050101_black/02chap08.html](http://greenbooks.theonering.net/guest/files/050101_black/02chap08.html)
 
Sauron = satan

Saruman = demon under the control of Sauron.

Orcs = secondary demons.

The one ring = sin of humanity, controlled by Sauron and his chief demon Sauron.

Frodo = Jesus figure, giving completely of himself to save all humanity.

Sam = Apostle John, most beloved and loyal follower to Frodo.

Gandalf = Saint Peter, guider of all Christian folk.

Gimli and Legalos = Crusaders, defending the faith to death.

Aragorn = King of the crusaders–supreme wordly defender of Christianity.
 
Messages of liberty

Two of Jackson’s departures from the original do suggest the insertion of postmodern sensibilities into a work that was better off without them. In the books, Hobbits normally are folk who mind their own business; they are friendly but wary of strangers, and not at all keen on trouble. Now, Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry are exceptions: they crave adventure — the kind Uncle Bilbo talks about, featuring dragons and goblins and gold. However much Jackson identifies with Hobbits, he somehow casts their noninterference with others as a bad thing, especially in view of the threat of his “imperialist” Sauron. Jackson’s wisest Hobbits are interventionists; there is a scene in his “Two Towers” where Meriadoc “Merry” Brandybuck even beseeches the treelike Ents to “do something” about the menace of treacherous wizard Saruman — an exclamation eerily reminiscent of that of contemporary interventionists whenever they try to drum up support for bombing a country half the world away. The cinematic Ents refuse to interfere in a war not their own, until they witness the destruction wrought upon their beloved forest by the Orcs of Saruman, the treacherous wizard.

Thornwalker Error Page in the book, the Ents already know of the destruction and decide to go to war against Saruman in defense of their homes — and, mind you, no further. Tolkien’s message is quite clear: self-defense is the only justification for war. The Entmoot scene of Jackson’s “Two Towers,” however, frames a quaint provincialism on the part of Pippin (“We have the Shire!”) against an “enlightened interventionism” on the part of Merry (“There won’t be a Shire, Pip.”). This didactic embrace of “do-somethingism,” so alien to the source material, is almost vulgar.

Another departure from Tolkien is Jackson’s characterization of Saruman. In the books, he is the wisest and most powerful of the Istari, the Wise, who were sent by the Valar (guardians of Middle Earth on behalf of Eru, the Creator) to counter the corruption of Sauron. Gandalf is another of these beings, who the appendices suggest are of the same order (the Maiar) as Sauron was before he turned to darkness. That is why Gandalf fears the One Ring and knows he would do great evil with it — he has benefited from Sauron’s example. Saruman, on the other hand, has spent centuries studying the Rings and their power, and has become seduced by the lure of that power. In that, he resembles a government official who (let us imagine) started in his line of work with the noblest of intentions but after being exposed to power over the years began to covet it, and turned to corruption.

In the books, it is quite clear that although Sauron and Saruman have established a sort of alliance, Saruman clearly plots to seize the Ring himself. There is a passage in The Two Towers where Merry and Pippin become aware of that: a party of Orcs that captured them, composed both of those loyal to Sauron (The Eye) and those loyal to Saruman (the White Hand), erupt in argument over where to take the two Hobbits, Mordor or Saruman’s stronghold of Isengard.

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/images/comment.gifBut in the films, for whatever reason, Saruman is no longer a “public servant” gone dark — he is an outright servant of Sauron. Saruman’s evil plans, which in the books clearly aim to increase his own power, are recast simply as instructions from Sauron. That conveniently avoids the issue of Saruman’s betrayal, which is still presented but is nowhere near as shocking. In Jackson’s version Saruman is not an agent of good who made a choice to embrace evil; he is merely a pawn, albeit one with delusions of grandeur. A principal observation of Lord of the Rings is that different characters react differently to the lure of power the One Ring promises; thus, Jackson’s reinterpretation changes Saruman’s character considerably — while avoiding any unpleasant metaphor about the corrupting influence of power and government.
thornwalker.com/ditch/reynolds_03.htm
 
Code:
.Is Osama bin Laden really the Lord of the Rings?
That question ran through my head for three hours, as I watched a fellowship of brave warriors battle the forces of evil. Was I watching The Lord of the Rings, or network coverage of the war on terrorism?

The villains have no political goals, for only human beings can have political goals. These inhuman forces do evil simply for its own sake. They are the cosmic principle of evil: dark, dark, dark. You dare not think of them in conventional terms, lest you be accused of taking their side.
Code:
     All that stands between us and this implacable darkness is a small band  of ordinary guys doing extraordinary deeds in their unconventional  hit-and-run style.  Always vastly outnumbered, they never lose a  battle and hardly ever a single life.  Are they really that  good?  Or is it just because they embody the cosmic principle of  goodness?...

   This is dead serious.  How many dead, in Afghanistan alone, the  Pentagon will make sure we never know.          

The president's job is to hide the fact that bin Laden does have  political goals.  He wants U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia, an end  to bombing and sanctions in Iraq, and no more U.S. support for Israeli  occupation of Palestinian territory.  More broadly, he wants to curb  U.S. influence in the Muslim world.
How many American lives are worth losing, to maintain our powerful influence in the Middle East and throughout the Muslim world? If that became a matter of public debate, the Bush administration and its war might be in trouble.

So the administration dehumanizes the enemy, casting bin Laden as the prince of evil. Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union “the empire of evil.” But at least he admitted that the Soviets had a political vision for which they waged cold war. Bush dares not even go that far. He can only call us to a war against Sauron and the evil forces of Mordor, a war with no end in sight. If we believe in his mythic vision, we can not even begin to think about the political issues involved.

The shocking fact is that most Americans do seem to believe in it. Have we watched too many movies pitting pure shining good against the mindless metaphysical principle of evil? …

Or does the immense success of Lord of the Rings…point deeper, to the thousands of years that humans have told stories about absolute good fighting absolute evil? The vast Christian lore of God against Devil is only one corner of this much vaster, world-wide legacy of myth and legend – the same legacy that bin Laden himself draws on so successfully.

So far, at least, the lure of simplistic myth has worked for the Bush administration like a charm. A mere hint that El Qaeda might have political motives sets off panic alarms among the patriotic citizenry. To raise any political question is to think about the enemy in conventional terms; i.e., to treat them as human beings, not inhuman orcs doing Sauron’s bidding. That thought would open up too many disturbing doors in the public mind. Easier to call it treason, set the mind at rest, and go to the movies.

This is the peace movement’s greatest challenge. As long as the enemy is cast as an inhuman force of cosmic evil, we can not raise public consciousness about alternatives to war. The pro-war forces know that and count on it to keep the war going. We must insist, over and over, in every way we can, as loudly as we can, that the contest is political, not mythicl…

We can and should condemn the use of violence to gain political ends. We can and should debate the validity of Islamist political principles and goals. Many of us will wholeheartedly oppose them. But first we must help to stop the killing. To do that, we must insist that even the people whose principles and goals we most oppose are human beings, not monsters from Mordor.

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder
commondreams.org/views01/1228-06.htm
 
Gee, how many innocent Iraqis were killed indiscriminately by terrorists today just because the Iraqis want to vote?

How many beheaded this week?

Yep, Islamofacists are the paramount of virtue.
 
Matt25, you need to educate yourself. You are clearly not using credible resources if you claim that opinion. Stop watching CNN and BBC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top