Sunday, June 16, 2013

What Tolkien Said

Tolkien was arguably the best philologist of the 20th Century.  So when he wrote the Trilogy, the name he gave the Enemy's City was significant.


One doesn't have to be a Tolkien-class philologist to get the drift; the "mor" root is familiar to people educated in German, French, and Latin, and changed only slightly to "mur" in English.

We're now seeing "Mordor" in phrases like "Mordor on the Potomac" and "Mordor on Lake Michigan". 

Artful use of the name, I think.


Jim said...

Aren't you confusing "mor" as in morte and mort for "death" with "mur" as in what? for murder?

Dad29 said...

Buy a real dictionary, Jimbo.

Saint Revolution said...

TO: Jim

Think bigger...and much deeper, Jim.

Dad29 writes of BOTH philology and Mordor.

Expound and expand beyond one-dimensional thinking.

Red is a colour, say, of a child's crayon. Red is also the darkest of political ideologies.

Red can be as simple as to colour the most insignificant book page or as disingenuous and irrational an ontology and mode of discourse as to weave a tapestry of destruction throughout world history.

Three letters. Same word.

What is love?
What is satan?

What IS Mordor?


I'm just curious, Jim. As a banker, did you, when employed, and do you now, agree with the now manifest and prolific heinousness and criminality of the US and world root banking system, of which you were a part, whether you agree you were a part or not? In other words, do you, at all, feel complicit?

Believe me, I can empathize with unemployment...if you are even still "unlaboured". However, if your bank granted you some "golden severance", this "golden severance", whether you agree or not, was begotten, at least partially, but certainly both indirectly AND directly, from and off the broken financial spines of the US taxpayer and the US banking customer...and you would, then, be sustaining off/from blood money.

The banking system as an entity has been PROVEN a criminal engaging in felonious criminality.

Proven but not prosecuted.

Do you consider yourself either a criminal or, at least, complicit?

I am NOT inquiring facetiously. I would sincerely like to know.

I am also not judging. I have not enough evidence for that. I am inquiring.

I know people personally close to me who work at FreddieMac. Uber-bloated salaries/benefits/pensions/perks FAR beyond what these people deserve or are at all worth...all taxpayer dollars. Try to tell these frauds they are complicit criminals and this is their response: they believe they are doing what they moniker, "XXX Incorporated". XXX = their name. For instance, "Ned" believes simply he works for, "Ned Incorporated"...take as much as you can as long as you can before either getting caught or getting out.

This is their philosophy. I have been told my face (ear) employe of FreddieMac.

So, Jim, do you eschew accountability and embrace denial as well?

Banks Are Number 1 said...

"The banking system as an entity has been PROVEN a criminal engaging in felonious criminality."

Then you better as well indict capitalism in all of its glory.

The emergence of commerce and capitalism can be traced back to the city-states of Italy. Financial, insurance, and accounting innovations, buoyed by commercial endeavors, spurred investment on a grand scale. Profits of epic proportions were sought, at first through local trade, then trans-continental. Joint stock companies required large amounts of capital. By the 1600's, international banking systems developed to provide nation-states and emerging businesses with the necessary capital.

Now, most certainly today, reasonable laws can be crafted to rein in the most heinous of banking activities. Alas, many in business and finance would find those regulations to be anti-capitalist in nature.

Where do YOU fall, St. Revolution?

Dad29 said...

Capitalism, like most "isms", must be subject to regulation which is oriented to the common good.

Further, let's not confuse investment banks with commercial banks. That's an idiocy enshrined by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

How'd that work for the US in '08?

Banks Are Number 1 said...

"Capitalism, like most "isms", must be subject to regulation which is oriented to the common good."

And therein lies the dilemma. Common good has different meanings--political, economic, religious. Bank are NOT in the business of being concerned with ethics. especially if it hits their bottom line. Moreover, banks are looking out for their own interest related to what they define as the common good, which means less interference from a government entity.

"Further, let's not confuse investment banks with commercial banks."

Tell that to St. Revolution, he believes ALL banks regardless of type or function are inherently evil.
Furthermore, lets not forget the overwhelming support for the repeal of Glass-Steagall--which we agree was foolish--in the name of the "common good".