Based Tolkien

submitted by [deleted] from i.imgur.com

all 12 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

This is from one of his letters in the Letters compilation done up by his son, Christopher.

Good stuff.

[–]proc0 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I wonder why we couldn't factor that in to the job description somehow. Nobody can run voluntarily maybe? People should get surprised with a nomination and then win. I'm not sure how but that is definitely one of problems of the job, that it self-selects for psycopaths and power hungry people.

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

A+++

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic, and in his religious and political views he was mostly a traditionalist moderate, with libertarian, Distributist, and monarchist leanings, in the sense of favouring established conventions and orthodoxies over innovation and modernization, whilst castigating government bureaucracy; in 1943 he wrote:

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)—or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy."

The way he understood anarchy is much, much, different from our understanding. He didn't mean endless violence, murder, rape, and destruction like most people understand anarchy. Also, I don't see a devout Roman Catholic like Tolkien supporting that kind of anarchy either.

And more from CirdanLinweilin, The Wandering Wastrel, here.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

A better place to find sources of his views would be in his Letters. All of this information you are pasting is just an interpretation from his letters, most of the ones with political slants to them were sent to his son during WW2. I don't think he liked England very much, besides from him being a patriot, naturally so. He made comments about their shallowness of culture, hoity-toity attitude towards folklores, and even the appropriation of folklores and linguistic habits taken only to manipulate the populace.

Anarchy doesn't mean chaos. It means natural order will out, and that doesn't equate to villains on the top. Naturally, humans will either choose good leaders or topple. It would even the playing field for those of us who hate globalists, unlike you socks, who love globalists of any color, except red.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

A better place to find sources of his views would be in his Letters. All of this information you are pasting is just an interpretation from his letters, most of the ones with political slants to them were sent to his son during WW2. I don't think he liked England very much, besides from him being a patriot, naturally so. He made comments about their shallowness of culture, hoity-toity attitude towards folklores, and even the appropriation of folklores and linguistic habits taken only to manipulate the populace.

OK - it helps to see the letters. (I know a bit about him and how he lived, and his view from Oxford was similar to that of many of his colleagues.)

Anarchy doesn't mean chaos. It means natural order will out,

OK - not wrong, but somewhat idealistic.

and that doesn't equate to villains on the top.

What? (Often, it does, as one can read about.)

Naturally, humans will either choose good leaders or topple.

What?! Will all humans have a choice? No. (Only the most powerful will succeed, and will do whatever they want to the less powerful, as we can read about. This is why democracies are better.)

It would even the playing field for those of us who hate globalists

What?!?! (Not in the least. Read about the histories of dictatorships and oligarchies, and how they developed.)

unlike you socks,

What?!?!?! What's the point of making this a personal attack? Are you not confident in what you've written? Do your arguments stand on their own? Do you have to drag down the discourse?

who love globalists of any color, except red.

FFS (You don't know me. Leave me alone, for reasons I've mentioned earlier. You're unable to follow Saidit's guidelines or hold a normal conversation.)

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

You should better understand nature if you want to understand why you are wrong. Villains get to the top of unnatural structures, not natural structures. If they ever do through manipulation, the structures fall. That is what history tells us. We have never seen a powerful, continent spanning nation of natural political and social structures. From what I can tell, they were destroyed throughout the centuries by this globalist force.

I don't need to prove anything, socks. I'm simply responding to you how I see fit.

What??

What?!??

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's simple: if you have an argument, include evidence with it.

You won't have evidence of the history of anarchy leading to kind and wonderful leaders.

Why do you bother me with this nonsense on a regular basis, especiallly when you know I'll likely tell you how wrong you are? Leave me alone. I'll try not to reply to your 6-year-old arguments from now on. It doesn't help either one of us. It's ridiculous.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thousands of years ago, when there was anarchy, humans lived in tribes with their extended families. This is what we naturally did to create civilization thousands of years ago, when there was anarchy. We don't know much about this time period besides from daily technology that has been left behind, like tools and the like. We don't know how bad or how good life was, but modernists like you tend to paint it in a really dark, primitive way which doesn't match my experiences with living in nature. Nature is very welcoming to someone who has some salt. Eventually, some of these tribes chose or elected chieftains and kings from amongst themselves, whilst other tribes would get unnaturally conquered by another group, usually one with an established religion and priest class. These conquering societies are what built civilization as we know it. It is unnatural, and anyone with an eye geared towards nature could see that.

Naturally, humans should live in smaller communities with their extended families, and they should choose their local leaders from amongst themselves. Modern anarchists are like sovereign citizens, or Christians. They miss vital parts of how to make their belief system into anything other than chaos. That does not mean that anarchy is chaos, or that every policy discussed in the silly sov. cit. movement is bunk, or that everything Jesus is said to have taught is bunk.

Anarchy did not produce Imperialism. Authoritarian priest-classes did that using ancient dwelling sites, like in Sumeria and Mesopotamia.

Should I put a link to every sentence? You will quote someone else on Tolkien's views, but not from his letters where the views are actually relayed. Why would you trust anything I source? You like Dailymail and WashingtonPost for the sake of love, it's like arguing with Chipit, but you are blue.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

OK - so we should live like they did in the stone age, or in antiquity, or the early Christian era. Did that really work so well? (no) This is not history. Please do us both a favor and enjoy other other users' posts.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

No, I do not propose that we get feudalism going again. I have told you what I prefer. Democratic clan-based monarchies, we live in the modern age. There is no reason why this cannot be technologically advanced, it's not as though we need these fake-democracies we have today to have toilets and modern medicine.

Obviously what we have today destroys families and cultures. The answer is to rebuild. You are a stick in the mud, socks.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Democratic clan-based monarchies

Have a look at 17th century England