Comments on: Lord of the Rings Commentary by Howard Zinn & Noam Chomsky http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/lord-of-the-rings-commentary-by-howard-zinn-noam-chomsky/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:34:39 +0000 hourly 1 By: PanchoSanza http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/lord-of-the-rings-commentary-by-howard-zinn-noam-chomsky/#comment-80505 PanchoSanza Thu, 08 Apr 2010 16:28:14 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=27912#comment-80505 The thing was recorded on April 1st, 2002. It's a joke. The thing was recorded on April 1st, 2002. It's a joke.

]]> By: Cas Balicki http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/lord-of-the-rings-commentary-by-howard-zinn-noam-chomsky/#comment-45763 Cas Balicki Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:03:38 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=27912#comment-45763 Consequently, Zinn and Chomsky must take the side of the forces Tolkien arrays against individual freedom. But logically they cannot make their argument without first showing that these forces--all metaphors for evil, by the way--have justice on their side. It is, of course, only Marxist sleight of hand employed to suggest that the orcs are the true victims of the piece, and that they are not responsible for their condition, this in spite of the fact that even Sauron needs servants and that these servants <i>choose</i> to serve him. That the orcs, fallen angels that they are suggested to be, might choose to serve out of fear is no excuse or justification, for Frodo also chooses to serve even though he, too, fears the consequences of his choice. That he defeats evil is metaphorical testament to the struggle we as individuals must all commit ourselves to in spite of the fears pressing in on each of us. It is ourselves, as individuals, and not Marx or the Marxist collective that Tolkien wants us to see in his epic tale, and that is why Zinn and Chomsky come across as sophomoric, even idiotic, in their critique. Consequently, Zinn and Chomsky must take the side of the forces Tolkien arrays against individual freedom. But logically they cannot make their argument without first showing that these forces–all metaphors for evil, by the way–have justice on their side. It is, of course, only Marxist sleight of hand employed to suggest that the orcs are the true victims of the piece, and that they are not responsible for their condition, this in spite of the fact that even Sauron needs servants and that these servants choose to serve him. That the orcs, fallen angels that they are suggested to be, might choose to serve out of fear is no excuse or justification, for Frodo also chooses to serve even though he, too, fears the consequences of his choice. That he defeats evil is metaphorical testament to the struggle we as individuals must all commit ourselves to in spite of the fears pressing in on each of us. It is ourselves, as individuals, and not Marx or the Marxist collective that Tolkien wants us to see in his epic tale, and that is why Zinn and Chomsky come across as sophomoric, even idiotic, in their critique.

]]> By: Saneperson http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/lord-of-the-rings-commentary-by-howard-zinn-noam-chomsky/#comment-45750 Saneperson Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:43:15 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=27912#comment-45750 Thanks, Cas, I'm enjoying your comments. If this conversation really took place - I thought it was a parody, it sounds so stupid - I am embarrassed for anyone who takes this kind of thinking seriously. Thanks, Cas, I'm enjoying your comments.

If this conversation really took place – I thought it was a parody, it sounds so stupid – I am embarrassed for anyone who takes this kind of thinking seriously.

]]> By: Cas Balicki http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/lord-of-the-rings-commentary-by-howard-zinn-noam-chomsky/#comment-45746 Cas Balicki Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:37:25 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=27912#comment-45746 Add to this the fact that they do a Marxist analysis of LOTR and what you get is another example of how Marx makes no sense as an authority on anything. I am tempted at this point to rage, when will Karl Marx die! But I know the answer and it is never, at least, not while there are ignoramuses like Zinn and Chomsky around. What is obvious after considering Zinn and Chomsky’s ideological bent is the fact that it is diametrically opposed to the major and very Christian theme of the LOTR, in that the individual, even the smallest among us—Frodo, a mere Hobbit-- may be required to make the greatest sacrifice to preserve freedom. To Marxists, who are all about collective, there is no glory to be had in this sort of sacrifice. For to the Marxist Sauron, or the power that he wields—the one ring--is the philosophical goal of the struggle. For surely Sauron and his acolyte, Marx, know what’s best for the world, whether it be Middle Earth or Cuba. Continued. . . Add to this the fact that they do a Marxist analysis of LOTR and what you get is another example of how Marx makes no sense as an authority on anything. I am tempted at this point to rage, when will Karl Marx die! But I know the answer and it is never, at least, not while there are ignoramuses like Zinn and Chomsky around. What is obvious after considering Zinn and Chomsky’s ideological bent is the fact that it is diametrically opposed to the major and very Christian theme of the LOTR, in that the individual, even the smallest among us—Frodo, a mere Hobbit– may be required to make the greatest sacrifice to preserve freedom. To Marxists, who are all about collective, there is no glory to be had in this sort of sacrifice. For to the Marxist Sauron, or the power that he wields—the one ring–is the philosophical goal of the struggle. For surely Sauron and his acolyte, Marx, know what’s best for the world, whether it be Middle Earth or Cuba. Continued. . .

]]> By: Cas Balicki http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/30/lord-of-the-rings-commentary-by-howard-zinn-noam-chomsky/#comment-45743 Cas Balicki Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:25:24 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=27912#comment-45743 The problem with Zinn and Chomsky’s comments is that they are mostly comments on back-story, which makes them foolish beyond belief. For them the question is not why did, Tolkien, and by screenplay Peter Jackson, tell his story in the way he did, but why did he not tell it our way, which is to say as a Marxist class struggle. I suppose what Zinn and Chomsky indirectly ask is, why is J.R.R. Tolkien a fascist. The profound ignorance in this imputed question is that all authors are fascists in that they neither invite nor allow any other individual into the creative process. In this respect authors are God like. Why Zinn and Chomsky’s critique demonstrates profound ignorance is that both of these fools are themselves authors, who doubtless brook no “creative” interference in the creation of their own fantasy fiction they cleverly try to disguise as history. Continued. . . The problem with Zinn and Chomsky’s comments is that they are mostly comments on back-story, which makes them foolish beyond belief. For them the question is not why did, Tolkien, and by screenplay Peter Jackson, tell his story in the way he did, but why did he not tell it our way, which is to say as a Marxist class struggle. I suppose what Zinn and Chomsky indirectly ask is, why is J.R.R. Tolkien a fascist. The profound ignorance in this imputed question is that all authors are fascists in that they neither invite nor allow any other individual into the creative process. In this respect authors are God like. Why Zinn and Chomsky’s critique demonstrates profound ignorance is that both of these fools are themselves authors, who doubtless brook no “creative” interference in the creation of their own fantasy fiction they cleverly try to disguise as history. Continued. . .

]]>