Split Personality?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Agreed Davem.

One might put it like this: "evil" in Tolkien is not a Thing, an ideology, a Side (PJ and several obtuse critics don't see any difference between the contending armies except one is uglier). No, Evil in Tolkien ultimately is about Selfishness, and Pride of the sort which gives selfishness full reign. Even Celebrimbor and the wielders of the Three share in this to a limited extent.

Saruman and a corrupted Gandalf would have forced Middle-earth and its peoples into their own mold, 'for their own good.' We are told that even Sauron began this way, honestly desiring order and reconstruction. Goodness knows Tolkien wrote the LR in the shadow of just such mentalities, ones that began with positive economic reforms, but which devolved into an ideologies of Death for all dissenters. The logic of the French Revolution (and the Chinese, and the Cambodian, and...): once you've created a government the people 'deserve', you decide the 'people' aren't good enough for the government*- better start lopping heads.

Denethor and Boromir fall into the conceptual trap by buying into the notion that Sauron is Evil simply because he's on the Other Side. This is of course a form of selfish pride, or solipsism- I am the Good Guy by definition; ipso facto the Enemy is Evil (sound familiar?) They've lost track of the fact that Sauron is evil because he represents compulsion and tyranny, prevailing by bulldozing opposition. The Ring is a Sauronian mechanism, its power consists in enabling the user to Do as Sauron Would Do.


*I note that Hugo Chavez' English-language propaganda website, www.21stcenturysocialism.org, there is the ominous prediction "democratic gains may have to be preserved by nondemocratic means...."

[Sauron the White]

from davem

PJ's Gollum is an innocent, a nice, friendly guy out fishing with his friend who is instantly corrupted by the Ring. That's PJ's take on it - the Ring instantly corrupts anyone who comes into contact with it, rather than just tempting them.

Because there is no backstory that we see on screen I do not see how you can make a statement about the character of Smeagol as a hobbit regardless if it is positive or negative. We simply see him fishing with a cousin for a brief moment and then the Ring is found. This tells us absolutely nothing about what kind of person Smeagol was before the Ring came into his life. Nothing - zip - nada- zilch.

Seems like just another opportunity to take another swipe at Jackson attempting to punish him for his capital crimes and mortal sins.

[Quempel]

I have always thought Smeagol had a look of evilness about him in the movies, something in his eyes. The whole 'it's my birthday' speach pretty much gave me the creeps and made me think Smeagol wasn't all that good.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Because there is no backstory that we see on screen I do not see how you can make a statement about the character of Smeagol as a hobbit regardless if it is positive or negative. We simply see him fishing with a cousin for a brief moment and then the Ring is found. This tells us absolutely nothing about what kind of person Smeagol was before the Ring came into his life. Nothing - zip - nada- zilch.

What were the difference between the theatrical and EE versions regarding Smeagol claiming the Ring, if any?

Anyway, I think that PJ tries to show a bit about Smeagol's past/life by the coloration of Andy Serkis' face. Smeagol is not your tan farmboy hobbit, but a creature with paler skin and circles under the eyes, and as we know, 'evil is as evil looks' (unless they smoke pipes, then that negates the whole soothsaying). Here are Smeagol and Deagol, neither of which I would trust as they both appear to be sociopaths at the least. And fishing without beer?!? As just why did Gollum become the anti-spokesman for the Hair Club for Men in a matter of moments, whereas Frodo retains his locks throughout the entire journey? Another indication that Smeagol was more than ready to be consumed by the Ring?

Seems like just another opportunity to take another swipe at Jackson attempting to punish him for his capital crimes and mortal sins.

Like a cup of joe, can't start my day otherwise.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

*I note that Hugo Chavez' English-language propaganda website, www.21stcenturysocialism.org, there is the ominous prediction "democratic gains may have to be preserved by nondemocratic means...."

I would be grateful if Mr William Hickli could post the link to this quote. I have done a google search, and I can find no record of this phrase having ever appeared on the 21st Century Socialism website. If this quote does in fact exist (google may have missed it), I can assure readers of this forum that Mr Hickli is using it out of context. It does not represent the editorial viewpoint of 21st Century Socialism, and it is wrong for Mr Hickli to imply that it does.

21st Century Socialism is an independent British web magazine which promotes fact-based journalism. It receives no funding from any foreign government or political party.

I will not be commenting here again, but if anyone wishes to contact me they may do so via the website.

Calvin Tucker
Co-editor http://21stcenturysocialism.com/

[Sauron the White]

While I cannot vouch for Chavez saying

"democratic gains may have to be preserved by nondemocratic means...."

I did teach both US History and Government for three decades and can tell you without a doubt that such people as Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt all would have endorsed such a statement. In point of fact, they did with their deeds and actions. One of the most undemocratic things you can do in a free society is to force someone to join the military and partiicpate in war and the killing of other persons. You do so with the authority of the state behind you and the threat of prison looming over the head of the draftee. That is about as undemocratic as you can get. In none of those cases did the people participate in any type of referendum to approve of that tactic.

But all three US presidents, and others also, endorsed and utilized conscription to swell the ranks of the armed forces for the sole purpose of winning the war to save democracy. So this is not an unusual concept or one restricted to the likes of Mr. Chavez and his compatriots.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

You do so with the authority of the state behind you and the threat of prison looming over the head of the draftee. That is about as undemocratic as you can get. In none of those cases did the people participate in any type of referendum to approve of that tactic.

There I would disagree. Since when is a referendum required to qualify as 'democratic?' The draft bills were passed by the people's elected representatives in Congress, as are all other laws of the United States. When FDR's draft act was passed by a single vote in 1940 everybody knew exactly what lay over the horizon.

I'm very much opposed to military conscription, but to call the American instances thereof 'undemocratic' when instituted in Constitutional manner is simply incorrect.

By contrast, what Chavez is talking about is, of course, rule by decree and other dictatorial methods should the majority of his people get tired of him. The old "one man, one vote, one time" story.

[Sauron the White]

The form of government in which Congress passes bills for the people is not a democratic one. It is the republic form of government. In a democracy, it is the people who are the government in a direct manner. Think of the 17th century New England town hall meeting. In the republican form of government, the people are represented by elected officials who then are suppose to act on their behalf. Perhaps they sometimes do. Perhaps they sometimes don't.

In the late 19th century and in the early 20th century, efforts were made to take the US from the standard republican form of government more towards a democratic model. The Progressives and Populists led the way in this cause. The expansion of the franchise from adult white, male property holders to a wider demographic base was a step towards that. Because of such 20th century innovations as the referendum, initiative and recall, the US has taken on elements of both the republican from of government tinged with democracy. This is one reason why many political scientists now refer to the US system as a democratic republic.

Any military organization is by definition the opposite of a democratic unit. There is no democracy in the armed forces. To conscript someone into such a unit, is by its very nature, very undemocratic.

I cannot speak for Hugo Chavez or his brand of government. But using non-democratic methods to preserve freedom is nothing new. Chavez did not invent it. Lincoln in fact suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War even though there was no foundatin in the law for that measure. But he did so in the pursuit of a higher and longer term good.

On April 27, 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.

I will not defend Hugo Chavez. But to act as if he alone invented the concept of the ends justifying the means is simply to ignore history.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Lincoln unquestionably transgressed the Constitution by unilaterally suspending habeas- a right the Constitution reserves to Congress in time of war, rebellion, or national emergency. *Had* Congress done so at Lincoln's request then it would have been both constitutional and, in the looser sense, democratic.

Technically you are correct as to the republic/democracy distinction- but if you're going to insist on that point than there is no 'democratic' government in the world, unless you can find one which operates entirely by plebiscite without an elected representative body. For practical purposes 'democracy' has come to be in everyday usage a synonym for 'elective republic.' By that standard the Selective Service Act was democratic. If you're going to insist that 'democracy' applies only to plebiscite, well, then, there is not a single democratic act or law in all of the United States government.

I think what you're trying to say is that coercion is inherently undemocratic- but if that were true, than the proudest achievment of the Progressives, the Income Tax, would be undemocratic. There the power of the State, under threat of prison, forces me to cough up a third of my income every year. No plebiscite was ever taken on that one, either- initiative and referendum do not exist at the Federal level. And I assure you the IRS is no more a democracy than the military. Nor is prison- which is where people go who transgress laws passed by Congress.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I should add that there is nothing inherently democratic about habeas corpus. Indeed, the Bill of Rights is profoundly anti-democratic, in that it places constraints on the will of the majority. In a 'pure' democracy, the faction with the largest number of votes would be perfectly free to ban whatever speech or religious practice or minority group is didn't like.