October 20th, 2008, 12:20 PM
having problems posting.........
Last edited by Afrobro; October 20th, 2008 at 12:23 PM.
October 20th, 2008, 12:22 PM
sry haing trouble using the forums right now my posts are disappearing are reciving error messages.
quick post sry for typos
I agree with some of what you said but certain parts of your argument situated within America i think were incorrect.
First the idea that the response to 9/11 has been we weren’t meek enough is laughable. Have you seen the news lately??? If anything the religious sector of society has painted us as victims attacked because of our /uber/only true religion/greatest nation on earth/only free country /city upon a hillness. The response has definitely been we weren’t meek enough, there are many in the uber religious far right who now think all Muslims should/must be killed/converted. Not a day goes by that some leader doesn’t say something to the effect that god supports war on terror/Muslims. I think you get into real big trouble when you associate Christianity with liberalism.
Christianity has launched just as many wars and selfish actions as any Nietzsche follower and any other religion combined. The idea that you can associate it with some kind of broad, tolerant, human first pacifist liberalism is where you begin to go wrong. The tolerant sectors of American society has typically been the least religious.
October 20th, 2008, 12:24 PM
Secondly your ideas about the secret successes 300 are somewhat correct but not because of some re-understanding or desire to re-understand nature on the part of Americans.
(This will step on some toes.)
300 is a success because it is Caucasian American western world fantasy precisely at the time when it seems the western world is headed into conflict with a rising hostile east. It adheres to a more stark worldview where the other is to be killed not tolerated and dealed with. This is the world of older more fundamental Christianity and it is making a return.( Before 9/11 the Pc police wouldn’t have allowed generals to say they think god was for war with Muslims.)
300's success is based on a nexus of:
**fundamentalism and ideas of religious strife in the wake of 9/11
**backlash against pc police and the perceived threat to America of multiculturalism. Fears that soon wasp and wasp values will not make up a dominate proportion of U.S. Notice the big issue of illegal immigrants. The idea that the "core" of America is under attack.
***A fear that America's ability to act unmolested and unaccountable for our actions may be over and that we are actually part of a global community in which we have to work with and fear the powers of the "other".
It depicts a nation built on slavery, using rhetoric such as "freedom" and "democracy" to kick the sh%^ out of all it challenges the die bravely while retaining moral superiority. It even offers a feel good speech about freedom and choice at the end which has the effect of making one feel good about what it portrays.
In short its not because this movie portrays a more accurate picture of the tools needed to survive that it succeeded. It's because the movie cowardly runs away from real world politics and situations.
dont know why i had to post it seperate but the forums wouldnt let me post all at once. been having problems for two days now.
October 20th, 2008, 12:32 PM
East Indian NASCAR dad
Given your feelings, then perhaps you are fascinated by the Space Marines or their ilk because you fear they may be right in their approach to life, in the 'what if this was how things really work sense.' In some ways, then, your reading of those books would be more like reading horror: we like to be scared. Could be as simple as that.
Originally Posted by kged
Couldn't disagree more. I will say that as a species we are no where near being able to behave in such a tolerant fashion. World events give lie to that hope no matter on which continent you look, and no matter the skin color/religion/politics of the people involved. The world is brutal. Also, I think it's a complete fallacy that liberalism, as you've somewhat defined it, is the great ideal that many people outside of the West aspire to. It isn't necessarily so. Many people want nothing to do with what they think of as a gross and obscene culture, focused on sex, guilt, confusion, and self-flaggelation. Some would take that antipathy to extreme lengths and want to either defeat our culture with something they think of as superior (their own), or destroy our culture because our culture is the one of least resistance, and they want nothing of that to leak into their own cultures.
Originally Posted by kged
October 20th, 2008, 12:46 PM
East Indian NASCAR dad
Where did he comment on 9/11? I saw something about a meek response, but that doesn't have to be about 9/11. That could just as easily have been about Pearl Harbor, or some other attack by any other country on another. The rest of the paragraph...which broad based leader(s) are advocating mass conversion of Muslims? If they are far right, do they have any appeal beyond a narrow sector? There are also far Leftists that would advocate that any who engage in animal research should be tried and hung for murder.
Originally Posted by Afrobro
No it has not. The more accurate statement would be: "Despite their professed peaceful nature, many wars have been started by avowed Christians." Of course, this just means that Christians are just as human as everyone else, and just as prone to evil. It doesn't mean that Christians, especially European ones, are more prone to barbarity and war than other people: just that they've been more successful in the past 500 years at conquering.
Originally Posted by afrobro
Last edited by Radone; October 20th, 2008 at 12:51 PM.
October 20th, 2008, 02:12 PM
Youre right he didnt outright say 9/11. but pearl harbor or some other attack on a country by another does not fit the definition of terrorism. country on country would be an act of war ie pearl harbor.........
I did read 9/11 into it but any act of terrorism commited against the "West" works just as well. I still stand by my point when has the "Western/christian" ideals which the post described reacted to acts of agression with the idea that we werent meek enough?? Pearl harbor i think not.
Also yes the people advocating mass conversion and islamophobia in america are quite mainstream. For further proof of this you can check out Colin Powell statements on meet the press yesterday. I have heard this said on National Tv by pastors, generals, commentators etc... I hardly think these people constitute a narrow sector.
Are you really trying to tell me that the idea that Islamophobia and the idea that Christianity and Islam cannot coincide are fringe unnaccepted views in America. PLz...
As for the last part youre really nitpicking and taking my point out of context there. The discussion was about fundamentalism if i remember correctly. So here ya go
Christian fundamentalist have launched just as many wars and selfish acts as any Nietzsche follower or any other religion. Also the point wasnt about the number of wars or to state that anyone was more prone to barbarism or war. If you read the rest of what i wrote i dont see how you got that idea.
The point was that you cannot equate the rise of christianity or its supposed followers to ideals of liberalism, humanism and the general meekness which Thor seems to lament in his post. These are two seperate ideas/schools of thought and for much of thier shared history they have been in opposition to each other. You took that wayyyyy out of context
October 20th, 2008, 04:06 PM
East Indian NASCAR dad
Well, Thor did add a (what have you), so other kinds of violence can be filled in. To your question of meekness: Spain when it was railway-bombed. I read that section as Thor alluding to the certain strain of "why do they hate us-ism" that seems to be prevalent.
Originally Posted by Afrobro
Bro, plz... I made no claims in that regard. I asked a question. I still haven't heard the name(s) of one mainstream figure who is advocating mass conversion of Muslims. I seem to recall that general though I can't find his exact quote saying something like that. I suppose such people are present, but in what context do they make their advocacy? As formal U.S. government policy? Or through missionary work? There's a big diff b/n the two. Just to keep things clear, I'm asking again, not stating as fact that they do one or the other. As for Colin Powell: didn't he have something definitive to say about weapons of mass destruction? You're probably right about the mainstream accepted view that Islam and Christianity can't co-exist. However, is such thought unique to the West? Doubtful.
Originally Posted by afrobro
Well, perhaps I was nitpicking. And after re-reading your posts, I got your second point mixed in with your first. But come on, bro, 300? Geopolitical? Cowardly? That was just a movie about some unnaturally ripped dudes kicking ass (the donkey kind, mods, not the curse word). If it was cowardly and not deep enough, then you went into it with expectations that were way too high. Why was it successful? Probably because it let you turn your brain off for two hours and fantasize about laying some serious whoopin on the totally unrighteous. Nothing wrong about that. Just don't try it in real life. I just don't buy the whole "geopolitical dimensions-moral-philosophical angle of its appeal that you and Thor seem to be laying on it.
Originally Posted by afrbro
Straying waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic. Hope someone can get us back.
Last edited by Radone; October 20th, 2008 at 04:36 PM.
October 20th, 2008, 07:15 PM
Sry Dont want to come off as an over analytical a%%hole so let me say that for me this has been an interesting/fun conversation all around.
Ok I will concede on the first part a little as I maybe was to quick to read 9/11. My point still stands that the standard Western/Christian response to agrresion/terrorism is not we were not meek enough. Do you diasgree?
However you are right About the why do they hate us sentiment so if thats what thor meant i misread it. I also must point out that why do that hate us-ism probably has less to do with christianity and/or liberalism and more to do with an hugely overblown sense of Nationalism/jingoism we dont apolgize greatest nation on earthism and all that jazz that a lot of americans accept without question.
Well I would like to argue that you can dispute 300's sucess as nothing more than a good action flick cause i can think of a lot better ones that did not do so good recentlyy.
(of course i do realize that we have entered the realm of specualtion here)
I definetly think the context of brave white/western male standing up to the outsider in the name of freedom/ justice and all that was right was defintely some of the underlying sucess of this movie.
I will admit though that at the time I saw it I was at A Southern Military College in S.c (yeah...thats about as far right as you can get lol) and I know this played a role in the students there so maybe I am SLIGHTLY overattributing its sucess to these factors.
as for Colin Powell he lied for bush and there are books and the film W to aupport this fact. So while we can question his integrity his grasp on whats going on i think is unquestionable. He tried several times to dissuade bush from his war.
Sry I cant provide any specific examples of advocating mass conversion killing/holy war on terror, but the islamophobia is undisputable. Americans speak in Code words when they discuss subjects such as this. As for as names go i think you were referring to....
Lieutenant General William G. Boykin (Retired) was the United States Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence retired in 2007 served in Iraq
He has gained notoriety for his Christian Fundamentalist views over the last few years and some unprofessional public remarks. Boykin is a born-again Christian, who has cast the "War on Terror" in apocalyptic terms. A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2004 that he had violated regulations by failing to explain these remarks were not made in an official capacity
**from wikipedia but you can verify it on any online newsource.
Giuliani was also hurt when the co-chair of his veterans' campaign in
New Hampshire, John Deady praised Giuliani for being able to stop "the
rise of the Muslims," an effort necessary to continue, he said, until
"we defeat them or chase them back to their caves, or, in other words,
get rid of them." When asked if he was really condemning all members
of the religion, Deady replied, "I don't subscribe to the principle
that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. They're all Muslims."
Deady was forced to resign after a video of his remarks was put on the
web by the Guardian
All they want to trade is burqas...
" The senator seemed to be relating the Muslim custom of veiling to
terrorism. The Detroit Free Press, whose city has one of the largest
Muslim populations, reported on Jan. 12 that McCain's remarks were
hurtful to American Muslims. "Local Muslims say that criticizing al-
Qaida is legitimate, but wonder why he would make a snide remark about
Michael Blake, an Iraq veteran explained that the military indoctinated troops with the idea "Islam is Evil" and "they hate us." This attitude facilitated the abuse and killing of civilians, and was not just 'a few bad apples'. (There are around 2000 unreleased torture images). "Most of the guys I was with believed it", he added. Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, a former 82nd Airborne commander insisted that responsibility for such abuses ultimately lead "directly back to Secretary Rumsfeld," as an architect of the torture policy.
October 20th, 2008, 09:18 PM
Okay, interesting conversation, but if we could bring it back just a tad toward the fantasy fiction, that might be good.
I don't think 9/11 or Iraq had much to do with the success of 300. I think it was the scenery chomping, the special effects look of the movie and other aspects that mattered more. Not that I'm saying the story wasn't complex.
But if you look at it, it's about a group of men who willingly go off to their deaths, and with the knowledge that even that sacrifice might fail. This is an interesting situation. And this might be the sort of thing that kged finds interesting and is grappling with why he's interested. For me, there are certain circumstances where I would go willingly to my death, so it's not such a big disconnect, such characters, even though their philosophies are very different from mine. But I can understand them, I can even admire aspects of their views, without necessarily wanting to be them. It certainly doesn't indicate a deficiency in one's psyche, to have a comprehension of another's thinking. But you do have to be careful not to reduce that other thinking to simple black and white precepts, I think.
October 28th, 2008, 12:30 PM
Been meaning to post here for awhile now, but it's been busy for me last few weeks and the evolving discussion's meant I had to modify and extend my response.
It's hard to stay on purely fictional grounds when by its very nature all the best fiction and fantasy fiction (which are only degrees of the same thing, since all fiction is by definition fantasy) deal with the big issues of the era that produced it.
Fanatical fantasy has been part of the various zeitgeists for…well…ever, and often people weren't able to tell it from their real lives. Just look at The Song of Roland. Almost pure fantasy, but the peasantry believed it was a historical account. It was the Iliad of its day.
There's a nasty tendency among humans to enjoy romanticized fanatics and totalitarians and despise their unromanticized counterparts as evil. It's a holdover from a time, not too long ago, wherein every society was by definition a totalitarian society.
Too many people just don't seem able to live with freedom, which is why they choose to live in a totalitarian in-group of one kind or another. The beauty of the West, however, is that you can choose to enter or leave such in-groups. They might put psychological pressure on you and try to insulate you from other ideas, but they can't legally compel you with force or execute you for leaving (not unless the sharia law advocates have their way in Europe).
Indeed, some of history's worst offenders have had to water down their doctrines or stop enforcing them in the interest of keeping their adherents.
The problem is that this tends to generate passivity, but the liberal worldview is just that: a worldview. That means it's an artificial mental construct that needs to be actively and deliberately instilled even in the face of competing totalitarian memos that are following a collective will to power by seeking to maintain their integrity and expand.
For more insight, I'd recommend "The Suicide of Reason" by Lee Harris, "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and "While Europe Slept" by Bawer.
Regarding Thor, I think he's right on the money in most cases, but I'd make a proviso there: the Nietzscheian supermen he mentions weren't acting in spite of Christianity, they deliberately worked to spread it in the interest of advancing the power structure where they reigned supreme and in crippling any other Nietzscheians who might rise to challenge them.
Sure, they had to play along in order to stay in power, but not as much as one might think, considering ideas like the elect and the divine rights of kings.
The problem arises when someone who actually believes this stuff gains power and honestly thinks that homosexuality leads to earthquakes and tidal waves and that a nuclear apocalypse will lead to a new and better world. Talk about Song of Roland, these people are living in a fantasy world!
And I loved 300. Especially that final line: "Today we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny and usher in a brighter future."
That, and the emphasis on people using their reason (and having the courage of their convictions and the willingness to fight for what you believe in) declares the spirit of the movie.
Vote Kellhus in '08!
October 28th, 2008, 12:32 PM
P.S. I'm being ironic about the Kellhus endorsement, in case you're wondering.
Why choose the lesser of two evils?
Vote Kellhus in '08!
October 28th, 2008, 12:44 PM
The Movie is a joke and a huge offense to me in many ways. To me it's right up there beside birth of a nation. Pure historical Propaganda.
Thor was right on the money in what way??
October 28th, 2008, 01:32 PM
Of course 300's not historically accurate. Spartan society was a facist one that emphasised total devotion to the state and the whole purpose of their warrior cult was to keep control of the helots (is that spelled right? Too lazy to check) and the Persians were comparitively more egalitarian to their subjects, but to enjoy the theme I regulate it to a sort of alternate universe historical fantasy.
Thor was right in his implication that history is made by those with the courage and the will to fight for what they believe in.
Vote Kellhus in '08! (or come up with something better)
October 28th, 2008, 01:51 PM
Just to clarify my position: if someone made a movie where the theme was: the country's become decadant and unholy and we can't trust our own reason, let's set up a nation that'll do the Lord's work, where people grovel to the gods and priests, forbid anything that's counter to our ideology and view every other nation or (possibly) race as evil, then I would despise it no matter what historical event they tied it to or how good the special effects were.
For example: I hated The Village. It was a well-made movie with a lot of good moments, but I hated its implication that society has to be kept in a state of superstitious fear and primitivism in the interest keeping everyone docile and happy. It was the last Shyamalan movie I’ll ever see.
Note: I don't demand that the movie be banned and I won't organize boycotts. I simply choose not to watch it and I will explain to others why I find fault with it.
Vote Kellhus in 08!
Last edited by RAD; October 28th, 2008 at 01:55 PM.
October 28th, 2008, 03:39 PM
It never entered my mind
I found "Idiocracy" far more disturbing about what the future has in store for us than "The Village"
Tags for this Thread