Skip to content or view screen version

Lord of the Rings: Philosophical Poison

Steven LaTulippe | 31.12.2003 20:34 | Culture | Ecology

The righteous anger of the ancient Ents is unleashed upon Saruman's tower -- leafy Luddites who wreck machinery, kill workers, and wash away the blight. The message is hard to miss. It is right out of the Earth First! ideological handbook.

December 31, 2003

When I first read the Lord of the Rings as a child, I was moved beyond words. It was like entering a boyish fantasyland of adventure, danger, and romance. Tolkien painted Middle Earth with such poetic beauty that I wanted to unsheathe my sword and come to its rescue. His portrait of evil was captivating in its relentless malevolence.

Upon hearing that it was to be made into a movie trilogy, I was somewhat pessimistic. I doubted that any production could do the books justice. I was skeptical that the soul of the story could be captured on the big screen, and feared that the beloved tale would be butchered by Hollywood.

But I have to hand it to the makers of this series. By God, they did it. With each episode, they just kept getting better. The scenery is entrancing. The action is breathtaking. The characters blossom in their heroism, humanity, and beauty.

But now, decades after my first reading of the series, my perspective has changed. My "propaganda radar" is always on, and it picks up smuggled concepts and hidden political agendas like a tireless bloodhound. Decades of bombardment by the cultural Marxists have forced me to eat the apple of Eden. I see the good and evil and can no longer bask in that wonderful innocence of childhood.

As much as it genuinely pains me to say it, this movie trilogy is philosophically corrupt.

May old Tolkien forgive me, but the ideology embraced by the Ring trilogy is extremely harmful to those of us on the libertarian/paleoconservative right. It is more than harmful, it is downright dangerous.

I realize that this borders on sacrilege ... but before showering me with hoots of derision, hear me out.

Generally speaking, I see two politically-charged ideas advanced by this series.

First, and of lesser importance, is a strong anti-technology message that is plainly evident. The heroes are warm and fuzzy people who live in pastoral environs. The Hobbits farm peacefully in their delightful shires. The Elves live in their grand forests. The dwarves live in their rugged mountains and caves.

Cities and industry, on the other hand, are portrayed in the worst terms imaginable. Saruman's demesnes are downright Dickensian. Deformed orcs labor in satanic mills, mass-producing their evil progeny. The very Earth is despoiled as forests are mowed down, leaving behind barren moonscapes of poisoned soil and air.

This could have been written by Ralph Nader.

But luckily for Middle Earth, this industrial blight is erased by the righteous anger of the ancient Ents. They storm from the remaining forests like environmentalists attacking an SUV dealership. These leafy Luddites wreck the machinery, kill the disfigured orcish workers, and wash away the blight in a giant tidal wave.

Like it or not, the message is hard to miss. It is right out of the Earth First! ideological handbook.

While this Marxist/environmentalist propaganda is annoying, the more serious problem is the attack on "isolationism."

America, and much of the Western world, has had a long-running conflict between two irreconcilable views of the purpose of our civilization. One group, most aptly typified by the Jacobins of French Revolutionary fame, believes that society is an idealistic pursuit of utopia. This school of thinking holds that there must be a unifying goal which must be pursued relentlessly in order to justify society's collective existence. From the Crusades to the present Iraq War, the Jacobins believe that only by throwing our bodies (not their bodies, mind you ... but ours) into the maw of war for the "higher purpose" that currently enthralls them will we morally justify our existence.

The opposite pole, typified by the America First movement of 1930s fame, holds a position usually described as "conservative." This group believes that the purpose of society is to provide a framework of liberty so that the people can go about living their lives. It holds that the purpose of society is to permit the people to raise their children, work at their chosen career, and worship God with as little interference from distant authority as is possible. It is the belief in a Republic, not an Empire. It requires a military of minutemen, not centurions. It believes in "community building" at home, not "nation building" abroad.

The movie that the Ring trilogy most recalls in my mind is Casablanca. That too was a wonderfully made production with first-rate acting. But it too was a pot-shot at "isolationism." That movie revolved around a character who sulked about his own failed love life rather than lift a finger to enter the fray of world war. He was portrayed as a rather pathetic "man" who would rather cry in his drink than do anything concrete to save the world.

In the Ring, an implacable evil arises from distant lands. The Hobbits, (who one thinks are portrayed rather like our beltway elites view Americans in small-town USA), are content to live their myopic little lives instead of going off Crusading. But they can't just live their little lives. They cannot think that there is any moral righteousness in building a shire and enjoying their family. Not when there are orcs that need killing.

It is this Manichean view of reality, along with the futility of "isolationism," that is the real underlying message of the Lord of the Rings.

The psyche of our elites is essentially one endless loop of Lord of the Rings, with themselves starring as Gandalf (the wise one who must convince everyone else of the need for the Crusade). Their worldview, which in the American context I believe arose from the righteous fanaticism of New England Puritanism, focuses on a continuing series of Saurons. Southerners, Spaniards, Serbians, Muslims, etc., have each, in turn, served as the evil straw man against which the elites can release the grapes of wrath and swing their terrible swift sword.

Those who oppose their plans are either isolationist hobbits, cowardly human villagers, or Saruman-like turncoats.

The problem with this "Middle Earth" view of reality is that it does not accurately reflect the world around us. Arabs are not orcs. Milosovic is not Sauron. The Albanians are not elves. This philosophy of endless Crusading will leave us with mounds of corpses, a bankrupt treasury, and an Empire instead of a Republic.

So as much as we might enjoy swinging our make-believe sword at those imaginary orcs, adulthood beckons. Serbian nationalists and Muslim fanatics can never destroy our Constitution. But the ethos of endless war just might succeed where they fall short.

* * *

Steven LaTulippe is a physician currently practicing in Ohio. He was an officer in the United States Air Force for 13 years.

Steven LaTulippe
- e-mail: paleoliberty@aol.com
- Homepage: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/latulippe3.html

Comments

Hide the following comment

interesting point

05.01.2004 03:37

Interesting point.

But remember that in the books it is clearly stated that the Elves created the rings to hold back time and the forces of change as they saw that their time was drawing to an end. 'For they were not at peace in their hearts, and refused to return into the West, and they desired to stay in Middle Earth.'

This is partly why anyone who wears the One Ring (and the other Rings) gets a longer lifespan, and Gladriel uses the power of her Ring to keep her domain culturally fixed in the past. (likewise for Elrond)

It's clearly laid out by Tolkien in the Silmarillion that the cause of the Wars of the Ring is due to the Elves themselves not accepting change. So Tolkien does accept change as the natural order of things - what he seems to be against is either forcing change (as in the industrialisation of the Shire) or attempting to hold change back (as in the Elves refusing to accept that they should 'pass into the twilight and the Dominion of Men begin' as specifically ordered by Eru, the ultimate creator of Middle Earth)

If the Elves hadnt been so greedy, then Sauron would not be the power he is now - they made the rings after all - shades of Bush here :)


Another interesting thought:

Some people suggest that Sauron was really the goodie - rememeber Tolkien said that LOTR is 'a historical recounting of events that happened long ago' and 'was written by the victors of the Wars of the Ring.'

That implies that of course the victors re-wrote history to portray themselves as the noble pure people and the enemy as being evil - witness Nuremburg, and consider the trials that the Nazis would undoubtly have made of Allied war-crimes had they won (which Tolkien was well aware of.)

Clues in the books are that Sauron's forces were far more multi-cultural than the Elves and their allies, and had a far greater diversivity of cultures and nations and lanuages. Also Saurons forces included 'renegadade' Men and others who have apparently crossed over, wheras the Western armies don't include any Orcs or Wraiths or memebers of races identified with Sauron - this points to Sauron being far more welcoming of those from other cultures, especially compared with the rather snooty and isolationist races of the West.

So it could be argued that the forces of the West are really the Nazis who fight (and win) their war of racial purity, then rewrote history to make themselves seem pure.

tomato