The Lord of the Rings: Proof Leftism is a Mental Disorder!

[Carcharodon]

We all remember those cloning experiments gone awry who clamored that George Lucas was a racist because they thought Jar Jar was supposed to be Jamacian and the Neimoidians were meant to be Japanese. Well, they're at it again.

From The Manchester Guardian:
"The Lord of the Rings is racist. It is soaked in the logic that race determines behaviour. Orcs are bred to be bad, they have no choice. The evil wizard Saruman even tells us that they are screwed-up elves. Elves made bad by a kind of devilish genetic modification programme. They deserve no mercy.

"To cap it all, the races that Tolkien has put on the side of evil are then given a rag-bag of non-white characteristics that could have been copied straight from a BNP leaflet. Dark, slant-eyed, swarthy, broad-faced — it's amazing he doesn't go the whole hog and give them a natural sense of rhythm."

(God, I love the British press.)


From The New York Times: "t's impossible not to experience Peter Jackson's "Two Towers" as war propaganda of unnerving power. The scene in which ranks upon ranks of enemy Uruk-hai warriors march in perfect order seems like a spine-chilling tip of the computer-graphics hat to Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will'…. On the intentional level, "The Two Towers" is a grand adventure tale, in which good and evil are comfortingly clear. But even without the accidental echoes — evil or "Evildoers?" Sauron or Saddam? And how many towers? — the movie would have its own double edge. Dehumanizing the other guy is the first step in training soldiers and fighting wars. The danger is that this is what makes not just warfare palatable but extermination itself."


Here's what Jonah Goldberg of the National Review has to say about all that:

"One is tempted to ask who is the real racist here? On the one hand we have people — like me — who see horrific, flesh-eating, dull-witted creatures with jagged feral teeth, venomous mouths, pointed devilish ears, and reptilian skin, and say, "Cool, Orcs!" On the other hand we have people, like Mr. Yatt, who see the same repugnant creatures and righteously exclaim "black people!" Maybe he should spend less time vetting movies for signs of racism and more time vetting himself if, that is, he free-associates black people with these subhuman monsters."

"In the real world it's much more difficult to identify evil. It would be much easier to argue for toppling Saddam if he were a giant fiery eye ruling subhuman creatures bent on destroying all that is beautiful and enslaving all that is good. But, damn it, that's not the case. The reality is much more complicated than the metaphor. But that is always the case. And, the principle remains: Evil still exists, even if it is adorned with better disguises than an Orc mask and equipped with better excuses for leaving it be. Such excuses might be the potential deaths of innocent humans — as opposed to vile Orcs — or the simple rationalization that our own comfortable Shire is not particularly threatened yet. And come to think of it, another rationalization for not heeding the message that evil must be confronted might be to dismiss the messenger as a racist. After all, those Orcs do have dark skin."

(And you know what's REALLY ironic about all this? Viggo was on Larry King talking up the Sean Penn bit just like the pansy he is!)

(But that's no problem. We've still got Harrison Ford and Clint Eastwood holding the line for us. I mean, shit, Aragorn didn't even SAY ANYTHING to that big tube of vasoline that killed Boromir! What an insipid little weasel! No "Go aheard, make my day!" No "You gotta ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well do ya, orc?" NOTHING LIKE THAT! Talk about being outclassed in the hero department.)

(I wish George C. Scott were still with us.)

Read Jonah's whole piece at [link]http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/ ... 010303.asp[/link]

[CmdrSweevo]

We all remember those cloning experiments gone awry who clamored that George Lucas was a racist because they thought Jar Jar was supposed to be Jamacian and the Neimoidians were meant to be Japanese. Well, they're at it again.

From The Manchester Guardian:

Heh, I wouldn't take a jumped-up local rag as representative of the British Press

[Admiral Valdemar]

Every tabloid with "Guardian" in the title is probably left be it from Manchester, Norwich, Lancaster or Aucherty-bloody-muchty.

[2000AD]

From The New York Times: "t's impossible not to experience Peter Jackson's "Two Towers" as war propaganda of unnerving power. The scene in which ranks upon ranks of enemy Uruk-hai warriors march in perfect order seems like a spine-chilling tip of the computer-graphics hat to Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will'

Did this guy rush out of the cinema at this point to write up the attack on LoTR? It seems that way as he must have missed the point where the Elves come to Helms Deep and show even more "perfect order" than the orcs. Or maybe he was afraid of watching something that would damage his argument.

[NecronLord]

You sir are a Retard. The Manchester Guardian became "The Guardian" during the Suez Crisis (1956 or thereabouts) That was the last time it was titled the Manchaster Guardian.

Your souce is

Either

A) Slightly less than fifty years out of date.

B) Made up by some website

or

C) You made it up.

[Zaia]

(And you know what's REALLY ironic about all this? Viggo was on Larry King talking up the Sean Penn bit just like the pansy he is!)

Would you please clarify this part for me?

[InnerBrat]

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=7776

This kind of thing wouldn't be allowed on the SLAM forum...

[salm]

this discussion has been around long before the movies came out. a whole bunch of idiots already pulled the same shit on the book.

[Carcharodon]

You sir are a Retard. The Manchester Guardian became "The Guardian" during the Suez Crisis (1956 or thereabouts) That was the last time it was titled the Manchaster Guardian.

Your souce is

Either

A) Slightly less than fifty years out of date.

B) Made up by some website

or

C) You made it up.

This is far more pitiful than any rebuttal I was expecting.

You, sir, are either

A) Pulling an strawman ad hominem attack, as leftists frequently do, against a trivial nitpick because you have no rebuttal to the actual argument that was made.


B) So ignorant and poorly read that you presume everyone else is as well.

C) A pathetic troll with nothing better to do than plink targets.

In any case, it's apparant you didn't even bother to read the entire post, much less my source material, before attacking me. If you had, you would not have been confused.

The Manchester Guardian, or just the Guardian if you prefer, is a prominent and influential British newspaper. At least, it is prominent among the leftist intellectual establishment that exists there. It has a relatively wide circulation abroad as "intelllectual" newspapers go. I read it for several months until I just couldn't stand it any longer. It is full of the most half-baked partisan distortions and back-biting that I have ever seen in my life, much like your post above. You see, my being a conservative does not mean I refuse to consider the arguments of those who disagree with me, as most of the leftists around here do. All I ask is a veneer of civility.

I don't care what it's technically called, and neither does anybody else except you. I've frequently heard it refered to as the Manchester Guardian. In my experience, this is still a perfectly acceptable name within intellectual circles. I've also heard it called simply The Guardian for short. I have no idea how many other less prominent newspapers around the world may also call themselves The Guardian for short (and neither do you, I suspect), so I made use of the modifier for clarity.

Actually, your claim doesn't surprise me. The newspaper does call itself The Guardian on its front page, and I am fully aware that this is the formal name of the newspaper. But when speaking to people who may not know what it is or where it comes from, I still call it the Manchester Guardian for the reason I just indicated. Deal with it.

People can call the Times of London a number of things: The Times of London, The London Times, or just The Times. Everybody knows which paper is being referenced. Actually, I have great respect for the more balanced and tempered perspective taken by the Times, if only they'd spend a little less time bitching about how pathetic Ian Duncan Smith is.

If you lack the necessary broadmindedness to understand a journalistic reference, the appropriate course of action is to ask for an explanation. It is not to accuse someone of being a "retard" just because you are not familiar with his source and therefore presume it to be a fabrication. Or instead you could just get out of your little comfort zone more often and educate yourself so that you don't waste any more of my time.

In summary, shut up. Or better yet, apologize.

[NecronLord]

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people

As you do seem to fall under that last category, I shall feel free to insult you.

[CmdrSweevo]

You sir are a Retard. The Manchester Guardian became "The Guardian" during the Suez Crisis (1956 or thereabouts) That was the last time it was titled the Manchaster Guardian.

Really? I could have sworn...

::goes and checks::

Bugger. So that'd make Manchester's local paper... the Manchester Evening News, I think.

Anyway, the points stands. The Guardian's a shite apaper

[NecronLord]

Please enlighten me someone, is everyone on this board a right-winger or something? Also what is the particular problem with the guardian? Other than it doesn't suit peoples opinions/tastes. Has anyone an objective issue regarding it?

[NecronLord]

You sir are a Retard. The Manchester Guardian became "The Guardian" during the Suez Crisis (1956 or thereabouts) That was the last time it was titled the Manchaster Guardian.

Really? I could have sworn...

::goes and checks::

Bugger. So that'd make Manchester's local paper... the Manchester Evening News, I think.

Anyway, the points stands. The Guardian's a shite apaper

Yes there is definitely a manchester evening news.

[InnerBrat]

Please enlighten me someone, is everyone on this board a right-winger or someone.

<hand up>
I'm not.

[NecronLord]

You sir are a Retard. The Manchester Guardian became "The Guardian" during the Suez Crisis (1956 or thereabouts) That was the last time it was titled the Manchaster Guardian.

Your souce is

Either

A) Slightly less than fifty years out of date.

B) Made up by some website

or

C) You made it up.

This is far more pitiful than any rebuttal I was expecting.

You, sir, are either

A) Pulling an strawman ad hominem attack, as leftists frequently do, against a trivial nitpick because you have no rebuttal to the actual argument that was made.

A nitpick? Your dilierate distortion aside, what the fuck is your argument. Indeed from the thread title I assume you mean to claim everyone with left wing views has a mental disorder, and you post an extract from the guardian to prove yourself.

I don't see any argument aside.

Lets look at some facts
On the Guardian website ( www.guardian.co.uk ) there are over six hundred and twenty mentions of LotR. Of those there is the one by John Yatt titled "Wraiths and Race" That is the only mention of this topic you claim represents the british press.

Lets see how representative of the Guardian John Yatt is shall we. He is responsible for a grand total of three articles on that site. Out of Thousands. Clearly he is a major guardian writer

FYI In the last thread this was brought up I recall slamming John Yatt's crap. Your claims that he represents the guardian are nonsense.

B) So ignorant and poorly read that you presume everyone else is as well.

I am ignorant am I? Humm, who was the one who claims familiarity with the british press but doesn't know the correct name of the guardian?


Oh it's you, what a surprise.

C) A pathetic troll with nothing better to do than plink targets.

*laughs*

Thank you, you have lightened up my day quite a bit

In any case, it's apparant you didn't even bother to read the entire post, much less my source material, before attacking me. If you had, you would not have been confused.

The Manchester Guardian, or just the Guardian if you prefer, is a prominent and influential British newspaper.

You think I do not know this?

At least, it is prominent among the leftist intellectual establishment that exists there. It has a relatively wide circulation abroad as "intelllectual" newspapers go. I read it for several months until I just couldn't stand it any longer. It is full of the most half-baked partisan distortions and back-biting that I have ever seen in my life,

Justify yourself

much like your post above.

Or like "Proof leftism is a mental disorder." Your thread title reminds me of the fascist reserch done on Marxists in spain before WW2

You see, my being a conservative does not mean I refuse to consider the arguments of those who disagree with me, as most of the leftists around here do. All I ask is a veneer of civility.

"Proof leftism is a mental disorder." Liar.

I don't care what it's technically called, and neither does anybody else except you.

Many people here believed you were referring to a regional paper.

I've frequently heard it refered to as the Manchester Guardian. In my experience, this is still a perfectly acceptable name within intellectual circles.

If you were as 'well read' as you claim you would know that when that is used it is used in reference to pre 1950's editions.

I've also heard it called simply The Guardian for short.

Did you read my post at all?

I have no idea how many other less prominent newspapers around the world may also call themselves The Guardian for short (and neither do you, I suspect), so I made use of the modifier for clarity.

Actually, your claim doesn't surprise me. The newspaper does call itself The Guardian on its front page, and I am fully aware that this is the formal name of the newspaper. But when speaking to people who may not know what it is or where it comes from, I still call it the Manchester Guardian for the reason I just indicated.

"It has a relatively wide circulation abroad as "intelllectual" newspapers go."

Deal with it.

I have, I have laughed at you

People can call the Times of London a number of things: The Times of London, The London Times, or just The Times. Everybody knows which paper is being referenced. Actually, I have great respect for the more balanced and tempered perspective taken by the Times, if only they'd spend a little less time bitching about how pathetic Ian Duncan Smith is.

Well they have a right to bitch about it, he is patetic.

If you lack the necessary broadmindedness to understand a journalistic reference,

I see, I don't understand, yet I use the correct name of the paper

the appropriate course of action is to ask for an explanation.

OK, What the fuck are you on about

It is not to accuse someone of being a "retard"

"Mental disorder" remeber that? You start it, so don't complain if you don't like your own medicine

just because you are not familiar with his source and therefore presume it to be a fabrication.

Should you care, I read the guardian, I have also read this article before. The fact is you claim a Manchester guardian still publishes, that paper I am unfamilar with, were may I purchase a copy?

Or instead you could just get out of your little comfort zone more often and educate yourself so that you don't waste any more of my time.

Stunning. Totally stunning. This from the man who believes that "Leftism is a mental disorder" STFU.

In summary, shut up. Or better yet, apologize.

Lets see.

Bullshit. Too much to count.
Hypocritical comments. Three at least
Arguments. None.

I see, so I am still waiting to see the proof that left wing views are a mental disorder.

As you have none, Concession Accepted.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

All this puff and triffle over the name of a newspaper.

Do people still make mistakes, and/or are misunderstood because of multiple meanings of words and phrases?

Dear Deer, Would you get some wood? There are two too many to count.

Tell me Necron, does one error, a retard make?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

And wasn't the central point of this thread how stupid the racist interpertation of the "LOTR's motives" was?

I have seen similar rants about Star Trek, and Star Wars made by people unclear of the idea that Martians AREN'T Blacks, and Jovians aren't Mexicans.

The idea that such a rant was fabricated, (based on the simple error/misinterpertation of the source,) rather than real, shows a predispostion for this conclusion.

[Stuart Mackey]

Well well, this character from the NY Times is moron


From The New York Times: "t's impossible not to experience Peter Jackson's "Two Towers" as war propaganda of unnerving power. The scene in which ranks upon ranks of enemy Uruk-hai warriors march in perfect order seems like a spine-chilling tip of the computer-graphics hat to Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will'&#8230;. On the intentional level, "The Two Towers" is a grand adventure tale, in which good and evil are comfortingly clear. But even without the accidental echoes &#8212; evil or "Evildoers?" Sauron or Saddam? And how many towers? &#8212; the movie would have its own double edge. Dehumanizing the other guy is the first step in training soldiers and fighting wars. The danger is that this is what makes not just warfare palatable but extermination itself."



First of, Jackson is a New Zealander, and the film was made here, we are not a nation known to support unilateral war. And they never asked Jacksons opinon on the matter, so this excerpt can be saftly dismissed for the biased rubbish it is.
Also what makes you think leftism is a mental disorder? hmm? I could just as easily say rightism is a mental disorder for the problems that causes.

[Necro99]

I have a suddent urge to exterminate the human race.

[Stuart Mackey]

I have a suddent urge to exterminate the human race.

Start with Australia

[NecronLord]

Tell me Necron, does one error, a retard make?

No, but one claim a good portion of the planet has a mental disorder based on a false POS premsie makes the guy fair game in my book.

[Peregrin Toker]

I have seen similar rants about Star Trek

Hmm... somebody accused ST of depicting real-life stereotypes??

Which stereotypes were it, and where did you find the rant?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

You haven't seen the Leftist rants from the Uber PC reactionaries RE ST?

Oy, such puff and piffle! Rants includes such "points" as;

Jordie, (obviously the most technicaly profificient with the white man's machines, still jumps at the elder bald white captain. Insult to injury, is that Jordy, is literaly BLIND without the tools of the white man, and thus totaly dependant apon the white man for guidence. The other Black, is Worf, the obvious violent semi-human, who struggles with his white-human ethics, vs his Black-Kilingon genes, which make him so dangerous.

The women on the ship do no real work, or make any important decisions, relying on their sex apeal and manipulative skills to achieve their goals, and advance their careers.

This and PAGES more of it's like were on this review, from a marxist's point of view.

The laughs it contained were offset by the realization that the auther was serious.

[Jadeite]

You haven't seen the Leftist rants from the Uber PC reactionaries RE ST?

Oy, such puff and piffle! Rants includes such "points" as;

Jordie, (obviously the most technicaly profificient with the white man's machines, still jumps at the elder bald white captain. Insult to injury, is that Jordy, is literaly BLIND without the tools of the white man, and thus totaly dependant apon the white man for guidence. The other Black, is Worf, the obvious violent semi-human, who struggles with his white-human ethics, vs his Black-Kilingon genes, which make him so dangerous.

The women on the ship do no real work, or make any important decisions, relying on their sex apeal and manipulative skills to achieve their goals, and advance their careers.

This and PAGES more of it's like were on this review, from a marxist's point of view.

The laughs it contained were offset by the realization that the auther was serious

What is the link to that?