Culture How did The Lord of the Rings end up so beloved by the right wing? - Elon Musk, JD Vance and Giorgia Meloni have all described JRR Tolkien’s fantasy novels as fundamental to their respective world views – but it’d be too easy to claim they’ve simply misunderstood them.

The Lord of the Rings is like a rich old uncle who periodically reappears in your life to announce his latest triumph or name-drop his famous friends. It was the epic bedtime story that thrilled you as a kid, then the billion-dollar movie franchise that came to dominate the early Noughties. Now the trilogy is back, celebrating its 25th anniversary with the theatrical release of an “extended edition” that was already available on home video to begin with. So The Lord of the Rings is basically the same as it ever was: a solid entertainment banker, a saga to set your watches by. What has changed is the fanbase. It has grown louder and weirder and a whole lot less edifying.

“Speak friend and enter,” reads the riddle that opens the gates of Moria. This essentially means that if you can say you’re a friend, you’re allowed free run of the house – and never mind that Moria’s self-proclaimed friends might not necessarily be friends with one another, just as all Tolkien fans aren’t always on the same page. It was inside Moria, for instance, that the disputatious Boromir began to wonder just what kind of Fellowship he was a part of, and how much he really had in common with an elf, a dwarf and a bunch of hobbits anyway. I’m feeling a similar sense of estrangement when it comes to The Lord of the Rings’ current crop of high-profile pals.

It used to be easy to spot a true Tolkien fan. His tale was the perfect blend of tweedy respectability with folksy eccentricity and was therefore beloved by young nerds, old hippies and a smattering of liberal, literate Real Ale aficionados. But it’s clear that we need to update all the files. Those older fans have died out while the nerds have grown rich and skewed right, dragging the text along for the ride, reframing it as the touchstone for extremist politicians and Silicon Valley billionaires alike.

The libertarian venture capitalist Peter Thiel is so in thrall to Middle-earth that he’s named his data analysis company Palantir (after Saruman’s seeing stone), his capital management firm Mithril (after a rare elvish silver) and his military start-up Anduril (after Aragorn’s sword). JD Vance, the US vice president, credits the story with “shaping his conservative worldview”. Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, for good measure, used to cosplay as a halfling at neo-fascist “hobbit camps” outside Rome. The Lord of the Rings is her roadmap, her bible, her mantra for life. “I don’t consider it to be a fantasy at all,” she once said.

The evidence would suggest that Elon Musk doesn’t either. The Lord of the Rings remains the world’s richest man’s favourite book. More worryingly, its epic adventure across Middle-earth has come to shape and inform his hardline views on immigration. Speaking on Joe Rogan’s podcast last year, Musk likened the hobbits of the Shire to the citizens of small-town England, and asylum seekers to Mordor’s orcs. “The hobbits were able to live their lives in peace and tranquillity,“ he explained. “But only because they were protected by the hard men of Gondor.” In Musk’s real-world reimagining of the Tolkien classic, he presumably casts himself in the role of Gandalf while Tommy Robinson co-stars as the heroic Aragorn.

In the meantime, thank heavens, we are left with The Lord of the Rings as it was envisaged by the director Peter Jackson, with Ian McKellen playing the wizard and Viggo Mortensen as the avenging king. The trilogy blows in like an emissary from a kinder, simpler age, altogether unsullied by recent associations as it sends its lowly underdogs on an impossible mission to destroy an evil ring of power and thereby save the planet. Or as loyal Sam Gamgee puts it, “There’s some good in this world, Mr Frodo, and it’s worth fighting for.”

At this point, it would be nice to hail Jackson’s adaptation as the definitive take on Tolkien’s epic story – its real shape, its true form. Except that this would only be replacing one false narrative with another. Because while Tolkien’s writing contains numerous qualities that contradict Musk’s bizarre theories, it also contains several elements (a sense of moral exceptionalism; an implied racial hierarchy) that tangentially support them. So it’s too easy to say that Musk, Meloni, Thiel and Vance simply misunderstand The Lord of the Rings in the same way that some fans failed to realise Starship Troopers (1997) and Fight Club (1999) were satires. Annoyingly, it’s more likely a case of different interpretations. Jackson gives us the liberal reading of the classic text; Musk the swivel-eyed, ethno-nationalistic remix. The truth – if it’s anywhere – dances somewhere in between.

1.png
Elijah Wood in Peter Jackson’s ‘The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers’
(Shutterstock)


In his later years, living in moneyed retirement in Bournemouth, Tolkien was reportedly horrified to see his work lauded by a bunch of wide-eyed leftist hippies he had absolutely nothing in common with. It’s safe to assume that he’d be equally dismayed to see it hijacked by a cohort of billionaire tech bros with links to the military industrial complex. But isn’t that the case with every artist who’s lucky enough to produce something that people take to their hearts? Stable door, horse bolted. Wash your hands and walk away.

The Lord of the Rings stopped being Tolkien’s the second he finished writing it, just as it stopped being Jackson’s the second he put his film in the can. It now belongs to all of us. To you and to me, to Thiel and Musk; to anybody, in fact, who declares themself to be a friend of the story. So throw open the gates and let them argue The Lord of the Rings out among themselves, from one side of the Misty Mountains to the other. It’s a good story and a noble pursuit. It’s alive, it’s ongoing, and its issues are forever up for grabs. Tolkien has long gone, but his tale – like the world – is still worth fighting for.

Article Link

Archive
 
That is the world we live in.
You're choosing the wrong idol to champion. Tolkien spent his life resurrecting Norse mythology and pagan mysticism, not suppressing it.

Politically, he wasn't a "trad cath" imperialist. In his letters, he explicitly described himself as an "anarchist" and an "unconstitutional monarchist." He hated the British Empire, he hated industrialization, and he hated the "machine."

You "Deus Vult" larpers want a centralized crusader state while he just wanted the shire. The actual ideal he proposed; a synthesis of Norse structure and Catholic ethics. It functions like a Norse village: personal oaths to a distant king, but no police, no taxes, and no government.

I don't even like these kinds of religious divisive arguments but it is too embarrassing to ignore, claiming a man while misconstruing his entire philosophy.
 
You "Deus Vult" larpers want a centralized crusader state while he just wanted the shire.
It was just an opinion off the top of my head, amazed I was able to inspire 4 paragraphs tho.

I had to look up "Deus Vult"--so that should tell you how much of a crusader I am. :lol:

In 5 days--
*accused of being "too liberal" and "Cafeteria Catholic" for telling one of my kids that New Years Mass, "the Solemnity of the Mother of God" could likely be skipped without too much harm.

*and now, I'm "Deus Vult" larper, trad-cath crusader, just for noticing Tolkien used certain Catholic themes in his stories.

Everybody so damn extreme and touchy these days, maybe that's the problem.
 
The Lord of the Rings is a fundamentally conservative story. It’s literally about the fading away of the elves, i.e. the elder days, and how things progressively and inevitably get worse over time (because the world is fallen), but not in a Nihilistic way, but rather a Christian way, in that man’s quest for progress and a meaning without God only leads to more and more sin, but good will continue to endure and triumph over evil in the long run.

A lot of people think Middle-earth is just a fantasy world. It’s actually the same as our world, just a long time ago. It’s a fantasy mythology of prehistory, but it’s the same physical location.

Someone guessed at the period to sometime around ten thousand years ago. Apparently there's a large time span of history that is pretty much completely unknown. There were kingdoms and civilizations at the time, and we know nothing of them.

Conan came from the same (several thousand years long) period so I will blithely assume while Frodo was climbing Mount Doom he was in the south somewhere fighting snake people.

Also, Terry Pratchett while likely not a conservative, made a lot of points in his story very contrary to modern progressivism and human self-righteousness.
Yes indeed. To be a bit more specific, after some initial weirdness in which he couldn't quite decide what Age we're on, Tolkien himself seems to have made up his mind that ours would be reckoned as the Seventh Age in the framework of Arda & the Ages of the Children of Iluvatar, and that said 7th Age began with the birth of Jesus (every Age begins & ends with some great divine cataclysm - the 3rd's, for example, being respectively the first & second great downfalls of Sauron, so the incarnation of Eru Iluvatar as Christ would have marked the 7th's dawn).
 
It's beloved regardless of politics because it's good shit.
The alt-lite fag queens are grifting it for extra cattle cred. They don't give a shit about LotR or anything at all that does not impact their fake credit scores.
 
Someone guessed at the period to sometime around ten thousand years ago. Apparently there's a large time span of history that is pretty much completely unknown. There were kingdoms and civilizations at the time, and we know nothing of them.

Conan came from the same (several thousand years long) period so I will blithely assume while Frodo was climbing Mount Doom he was in the south somewhere fighting snake people.

Also, Terry Pratchett while likely not a conservative, made a lot of points in his story very contrary to modern progressivism and human self-righteousness.
It is really funny that, even in this day, historians and archaeologists can’t figure out shit without a written history, and when written history is discovered, like with hieroglyphics, all those theories turn out to be garbage. Philologists stay winning.
 
They were partially worried about sales and partially hindered by the fact that paper was kind of expensive post WWII. It would have just been too expensive to make.
There were negotiations going back and forth, but Tolkien basically won those, because they'll walk if I tell them to! They were looking for a plain sequel to the Hobbit and instead Tolkien dropped one of the classics of fantasy.
It’s A book retard. I’m reading it now and the first page of The Two Towers is page 413.
Tolkien wanted it to be either one book, or six (seven with appendices; which he wanted much longer and delayed the final volume). The compromise was three volumes, each with two books in it - they're even labelled and named in the contents.

(As an aside he didn't like having to name the volumes because he felt it kind of "gave away the story" to have things like "The Return of the King" - iirc he wanted a more flexible title).
Pratchett understood human nature and it shows in a number of his stories, which is why he never felt particularly progressive.
Pratchett wants to be a progressive, and it shows quite strongly in his books, BUT he loves his characters too much to force them to be automatons, and so ends up being quite realistic. You can see this most strongly with Corporal Visit over the books, from reddit-atheist-tier parody of religion to respected and understood and loved.
The actual ideal he proposed; a synthesis of Norse structure and Catholic ethics. It functions like a Norse village: personal oaths to a distant king, but no police, no taxes, and no government.
It's very Catholic, Chesterton had a bunch of stuff along the same lines, subsidiarity and distributism are threads if you want to pull on it.

one thing Tolkien made very clear is he didn't like nazism and shit; his various "if the LotR was an allegory for WWII, here's how it'd go down" make that clear - of course, that doesn't put him on the "modern liberal" side, either; he's more along the Ents - he's on nobody's side because nobody is on HIS side.
Well, akshually, it was published as seven books in three volumes. *takes a hit from an inhaler*
ah, a true scholar appears
 
Mmm, it was meant to be one book (and has been reprinted as one, single book) but the publisher split it up into three because they didn't think a single 1000 page novel would sell
Akshually it was due to a postwar paper shortage that made publishing a book of that size so expensive that it would've retailed for somewhere close to double the average rent in the UK at the time.
 
Tolkien loved the jews, and told the Reich that he wasn't Aryan and sadly not jewish either.

He also wrote it too pagan first and went for a more Catholic feel later, never making his mind up if orcs were having souls or if they were soulless automatons.

He also was a trad luddist anti-industrialist. He really loved his rural villages.

So he isn't a good fit for any modern political side. He would detest the leftist 10 minute walk city bughives and podlife with bugburgers, but he would hate the giant bully boy nature wrecker Orange Cheeto too.

He really liked villages and prayers.

Luv me hobbits,
Luv me village,
Luv me trees.

Hate industry,
Hate big cities,
Hate deforestation.

Not a hippy just don't loike dem.
 
Perhaps, if you'd spent less time convincing yourself that everyone to the right of Marx was a evil nazi chud, you wouldn't have to rationalize how normal people liking normal things is somehow fascism.

On a sane political scale, I'd be a tree-hugging liberal who likes LOTR. That your purity death-spiral equates me to Himmler because I don't want to burn down western civilization is very much a "you" problem.
 
never making his mind up if orcs were having souls or if they were soulless automatons.
He actually made up his mind on that, and left it unanswered on purpose, for a few reasons. One reason was that Tolkien believes to make a believable world there are somethings that he himself can't know an answer too, after all Tolkien viewed himself as an historian for middle earth not the creator of middle earth.

The second reason is the topic its self basically causes you to question the very nature of what is a soul and Tolkien being a faithful Catholic consider that question to big for him and something left for God.
 
So it’s too easy to say that Musk, Meloni, Thiel and Vance simply misunderstand The Lord of the Rings
Commies are not taking TLoR away, assmunch.
Your ideologies are the literal opposite of Tolkien’s pen- no matter how hard his parasitical offspring whore his printed works to the highest bidder like common whores.


the same way that some fans failed to realise Starship Troopers (1997) and Fight Club (1999) were satires.
Fight Club was a satire with a very non-satirical message. This corpo-sucking goblin wouldn’t understand how much FC despises consumerism despite it being so in your face about it. Ackshually it’s about toxic masculinity! Blow me.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole