# Tolkien's Political Views



## Azrubêl (Apr 13, 2017)

I think anyone who reads Tolkien recognizes his perspective on industrialism and other societal trends that he saw emerging in his lifetime, but someone recently shared with me a 1943 letter from J.R.R. Tolkien to Christopher where J.R.R. Tolkien describes himself as leaning "more and more to anarchy". Here's the letter: https://peacerequiresanarchy.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/the-letters-of-jrr-tolkien/

I wondered if anyone is familiar with more of Tolkien's political ideology. I have always noticed and liked his emphasis on the family unit and the community over reliance on a central authority, but I guess he wasn't as vocal publicly about his interest with anarchism. I'm also interested in what he thought about contemporary political events and that sort of thing. What do you all think?


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Apr 14, 2017)

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. (At least I hope not!! )

*Politics and race*
*Anti-Communism*
Tolkien voiced support for the Nationalists (eventually led by Franco during the Spanish Civil War) upon hearing that communist Republicans were destroying churches and killing priests and nuns.

Tolkien was contemptuous of Joseph Stalin. During World WarII, Tolkien referred to Stalin as 



> "that bloodthirsty old murderer"


. 

However, in 1961, Tolkien sharply criticized a Swedish commentator who suggested that _The Lord of the Rings_ was an anti-communist parable and identified Sauron with Stalin. Tolkien said, 



> "I utterly repudiate any such _reading_, which angers me. The situation was conceived long before the Russian revolution. Such allegory is entirely foreign to my thought."



*Debate over race*
Christine Chism distinguishes racist or racialist elements in Tolkien's views and works as falling into three categories: intentional racism, unconscious Eurocentric bias, and an evolution from latent racism in Tolkien's early work to a conscious rejection of racist tendencies in his late work.

Tolkien once wrote of racial segregation in South Africa, 


> "The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain."



*Opposition to National Socialism*
Tolkien vocally opposed Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party prior to the Second World War, and was known to especially despise Nazi racist and anti-Semitic ideology. In 1938, the publishing house Rütten & Loening Verlag was preparing to release _The Hobbit_ in Nazi Germany. To Tolkien's outrage, he was asked beforehand whether he was of Aryan origin. In a letter to his British publisher Stanley Unwin, he condemned Nazi "race-doctrine" as 



> "wholly pernicious and unscientific".



He added that he had many Jewish friends and was considering



> "letting a German translation go hang".



He provided two letters to Rütten & Loening and instructed Unwin to send whichever he preferred. The more tactful letter was sent and was lost during the later bombing of Germany. In the unsent letter, Tolkien makes the point that "Aryan" is a linguistic term, denoting speakers of Indo-Iranian languages. He continued,



> "But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of _Jewish_ origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have _no_ ancestors of that gifted people. My great-great-grandfather came to England in the 18th century from Germany: the main part of my descent is therefore purely English, and I am an English subject—which should be sufficient. I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride."



In a 1941 letter to his son Michael, he expressed his resentment at the distortion of Germanic history in "Nordicism":



> "You have to understand the good in things, to detect the real evil. But no one ever calls on me to "broadcast" or do a postscript. Yet I suppose I know better than most what is the truth about this "Nordic" nonsense. Anyway, I have in this war a burning private grudge... against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler ... Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light. Nowhere, incidentally, was it nobler than in England, nor more early sanctified and Christianized."



In 1968, he objected to a description of Middle-earth as "Nordic", a term he said he disliked because of its association with racialist theories.

*Total war*
Tolkien criticized Allied use of total war tactics against civilians from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. In a 1945 letter to his son Christopher, he wrote:



> "We were supposed to have reached a stage of civilization in which it might still be necessary to execute a criminal, but not to gloat, or to hang his wife and child by him while the orc-crowd hooted. The destruction of Germany, be it 100 times merited, is one of the most appalling world-catastrophes. Well, well,—you and I can do nothing about it. And that [should] be a measure of the amount of guilt that can justly be assumed to attach to any member of a country who is not a member of its actual Government. Well the first War of the Machines seems to be drawing to its final inconclusive chapter—leaving, alas, everyone the poorer, many bereaved or maimed and millions dead, and only one thing triumphant: the Machines."



He also reacted with anger at the excesses of anti-German propaganda during the war. In 1944, he wrote in a letter to his son Christopher:



> "...it is distressing to see the press grovelling in the gutter as low as Goebbels in his prime, shrieking that any German commander who holds out in a desperate situation (when, too, the military needs of his side clearly benefit) is a drunkard, and a besotted fanatic. ... There was a solemn article in the local paper seriously advocating systematic exterminating of the entire German nation as the only proper course after military victory: because, if you please, they are rattlesnakes, and don't know the difference between good and evil! (What of the writer?) The Germans have just as much right to declare the Poles and Jews exterminable vermin, subhuman, as we have to select the Germans: in other words, no right, whatever they have done."



He was horrified by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, referring to the scientists of the Manhattan Project as 



> "these lunatic physicists"



and 



> "Babel-builders".



I hope that was satisfying.

CL


----------



## Azrubêl (Apr 14, 2017)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> 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:
> 
> 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. (At least I hope not!! )
> 
> CL



My conception of anarchy, friend, is one of spontaneous order and rejection of the use of force against others.  I didn't think Tolkien meant the term to mean what we are "supposed" to think it means.

Thanks for the long post. I learned a lot. One area that I was unsure about is the "debate" over Tolkien's depiction of race. Are there a large number of Tolkienists who think his work is actually racist? My impression is that it was indeed Eurocentric, but that is only because it is a reflection of the context in which Tolkien himself lived, it being the case that he sought to create a mythology for Europe itself. So I always thought it was a matter of seeing his work in context.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Apr 14, 2017)

I'm glad I could help! 

Ah, so that's your conception? I'm still not sure what mine is. 

I've heard that argument a lot of times before, I think it's mostly The Professor's detractors of today who spew such nonsense. I've also heard the argument that his work is sexist as well, again, it's utter nonsense. They don't even take the time to understand the author's viewpoint, they just look for a reason to rant.

We loyal readers of his great mythology know differently.

I've also viewed his work as a mythology for Europe, because that's what it's supposed to be!

CL


----------



## Azrubêl (Apr 14, 2017)

Royal leaders of his great mythology! That we are!

I think it's interesting how Tolkien was a pure Catholic but ends up writing more that is in common with paganism than a lot of less devout Christians, and he also seemed to have a positive view of benevolent monarchy, as well as anarchy. I think he would hate this "mob-rule" democracy that we have today most of all!


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Apr 14, 2017)

Azrubêl said:


> I think it's interesting how Tolkien was a pure Catholic but ends up writing more that is in common with paganism than a lot of less devout Christians






> ...He preferred applicability to allegory. This theme is taken up at greater length in his essay "On Fairy-Stories", where he argues that fairy-stories are so apt because they are consistent both within themselves and with some truths about reality. He concludes that Christianity itself follows this pattern of inner consistency and external truth. His belief in the fundamental truths of Christianity leads commentators to find Christian themes in _The Lord of the Rings_. Tolkien objected strongly to C. S. Lewis's use of religious references in his stories, which were often overtly allegorical. However, Tolkien wrote that the Mount Doom scene exemplified lines from the Lord's Prayer.
> 
> His love of myths and his devout faith came together in his assertion that he believed mythology to be the divine echo of "the Truth". This view was expressed in his poem and essay entitled _Mythopoeia_. His theory that myths held "fundamental truths"
> became a central theme of the Inklings in general.


----------



## 1stvermont (Jan 20, 2018)

*His conservatism*

“_Tolkien was a lifelong enemy of big government in every form, not just the harsher forms we find in soviet communism, German Nazism, or Italian fascism, but also as it manifested itself in British democratic socialism”
-Jonathan Witt and Jay W The Hobbit Party: The vision of freedom that Tolkien got and the west forgot

“A thinker far out of step with the rank and file intellectuals of his time and ours, the intellectual establishment of his day hated god and loved big brother. Tolkien loved god and hated big brother. Unlike many self appointed “radicals” in lockstep with spirit of the age, he was the true radical- the round peg in the square hole of modernity”
-Jonathan Witt and Jay W The Hobbit Party: The vision of freedom that Tolkien got and the west forgot_

Tolkien was an old-time catholic conservative, from a modern American perspective a libertarian. His political leanings were toward anarchy (abolition of control). He said, “The most improper job of any man, even saints, is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it and least of all those who seek the opportunity.” He hated socialism, communism, and progressivism; he thought totalitarian governments and control were evil. Tolkien said that the evils of the world are mechanism, scientific materialism, and socialism. “It goes by many names but always ends in greater centralization political authority at the expense of individuals, families and the church.” He warned that if England and others were to adopt the up and coming socialism “It would reduce each nation to nothing more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as shepherds.” Tolkien viewed all men as fallen, including politicians we might elect and hope to bring about a better society. Tolkien said that in contrast to the politicians, “I am not a socialist in any sense....most of all because the planners when they acquire power become so bad.” He felt that as a devout traditional catholic, the lust for ultimate power in government was to try and place oneself in gods place. Tolkien was a strong advocate of creation care and a lover of God’s green earth; this is just part of the reason he hated totalitarian governments.

_“Diluting their followers with images of paradise in the future, a modernist utopia, but what one often gets... are the blasted landscapes of eastern Europe (Eastern European socialist countries that tried to obliterate private property), strip-mined, polluted, and even radioactive.”
-Tom Shippy, author of “J.R.R Tolkien: Author of the Century_

In communist Russia they banned LOTR. 1991, in Moscow, anti-communist Russians held up a banner that read, “Frodo is with us” as Russian tanks closed in. Tolkien, his son said, “could not speak of income taxed without boiling over.” He was a strong supporter of private property. He agreed with the American founders that the need for moral culture to maintain freedom; believing only moral Christians could maintain freedom. He liked limited government and free society. He thought sin is the main reason we need government, yet also the reason to limit government. Tolkien did not like newspapers because they print false info. He was however, a former liberal. He said of his early life, “liberal darkness out of which I came knowing more about bloody Mary than the mother of Jesus.” However, starting in his 20's and until his death, he “was socially and politically conservative even by hobbit standards, and his conservatism was closely bound up in his deeply Christian and specifically catholic vision of man and creation.”

*Conservatism in the Lord of the rings

The shire*

_T_olkien said that the importance of the political significance of LOTR was second only to the religious significance. The Shire was portrayed as being a favored form of government and of old time England. As a libertarian, he created the Shire with no government or active police. The only force would be volunteer sheriffs, who carried no weapons, and wore regular clothes. They did not police the shire, but guarded boarders; mostly returning stray animals. In the shire’s government “families for the most part managed their own affairs.” The shire was a libertarian society, Tolkien’s preferred government system. The Hobbits enjoyed total freedom from any authoritarian government control. This is one of the main reasons for the attractiveness of the shire to modern readers and watchers of the movie.

_“No department of un-motorized vehicles, no internal revenue service, no government officials telling people who may and may not have laying hens in their backyards, no government schools lining up hobbit children in geometric rows to teach regimental behavior and group think, no government controlled currency, and no political institution even capable of collecting thrifts or foreign goods”
-Jonathan Witt and Jay W The Hobbit Party: The vision of freedom that Tolkien got and the west forgot_

*Scourge of shire government gone bad*

Left out of the movie is the last section of the LOTR, the scourging of the Shire. It contains much on Tolkien’s view of government. It is a section that “conservatives and progressives alike have recognized this final portion of LOTR as a critique of modern socialism.” When the hobbits return, they find there libertarian paradise controlled by an oppressive government led by Saruman, with Orcs and local evil men to help. No longer is it a peaceful happy paradise, the Shire and Hobbits are under government control. Those now controlling the Shire are referred to as “sharkey and the ruffians.”

_“The character of government is totally altered while its forms are not markedly changed. Before, the shire enjoyed easy going with max freedom and min government interference, the new regime operates through expanded restrictive rules, enforced by equally monstrously expanded military and para-military forces…the purpose of government is plainly to maintain, consolidate, and expand its own power.”
-Robert Plank, author of “The Scouring of the Shire: Tolkien’s view of fascism”_

During the scourge there are groups of “gatherers and sharers...going around counting and measuring and taking off to storage, supposedly for “fair distribution.”” Yet it just ends with, as one hobbit says, “Them getting more and we get less.”

Tolkien, the lover of all things green, showed that when liberty and private property were secure in the Shire, the landscape was beautiful and gardened. But that was “all gone” due to “The gatherers and sharers.” The new government in the Shire controlled more and more; land, taxes, and regulations. The government killed off the hobbit farming community and replaced it with industry.

*Ring of power and control*

_“A free society isn't something nice if you can get it, it’s worth laboring, fighting and dying for. The reason free people of the west fight Mordor to preserve their freedom.”
-J.R.R Tolkien_

The good guys in the book are called the “free peoples.” Tolkien knew that complete power corrupts completely. Even Gandolf, with the power of the ring, would try to do good; but knew that good could turn into a evil, greater than that of Sauron. A warning to the people of his day and today is that even good intentions can end with evil when there is too much power and control. At the council of Elrond the “good guys” chose to destroy the ring rather than use its power; they reject the power to dominate. Tolkien said “the supremely bad motives, domination of others free wills.”

*Fall of Numonor and Gondor*

Tolkien, the traditionalist, was of the opinion that society at large was falling away from faith and morality; this was reflected in his book. Gondor, he said, “was a more primitive culture, less corrupt and Noble.” What led to the fall of Numonor was its form of government and its stance against life. The government no longer served its people as it should, but it became a place where the people were instead forced to serve the government. The kings of Numonor became “Proud men eager for wealth.” “They appeared now rather as lords and masters and gatherers of tribute than as helpers and teachers.” In time, “They hunted men and took their goods and enslaved them.”

The cultural decline in the third age of Gondor resulted in lower fertility rates. Just as what was happening in England with the increase hostility to life during Tolkien’s time. Tolkien, who was pro life [Sam Gamgee had 13 kids], warned of the danger of such philosophy. Gondor’s decline was because of the lack of children. Gandalf said that Minis Tirith was already lacking half the men that could dwell at ease there and that many houses of great families “Were silent.” “For more than a thousand years the Dunadain grew in wealth and power, yet the signs of decay had than already appeared, for the high men of the south married late, and their children were few....childless lords sat in aged halls and the last king of the line of Anario had no heir.” The Ents are another example of what happens with lack of fertility due to culture decline.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Jan 20, 2018)

1stvermont said:


> *His conservatism*
> 
> “_Tolkien was a lifelong enemy of big government in every form, not just the harsher forms we find in soviet communism, German Nazism, or Italian fascism, but also as it manifested itself in British democratic socialism”
> -Jonathan Witt and Jay W The Hobbit Party: The vision of freedom that Tolkien got and the west forgot_
> ...




This just made me realize how much I am like Tolkien politically, and how much I adore him! (Especially, that very last part!) 

Thank you dearly 1stvermont! 
CL


----------



## 1stvermont (Jan 21, 2018)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> This just made me realize how much I am like Tolkien politically, and how much I adore him! (Especially, that very last part!)
> 
> Thank you dearly 1stvermont!
> CL




same thing happened to me. he in fact helped shape my views on a few subjects. 

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/index.php?threads/j-r-r-tolkien-a-short-biography.23274/


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 25, 2018)

Another interesting thread.

I'd hesitate to model my political views on Tolkien's, though, as he held some contradictory ideas: he sided with the "Free Peoples", but disliked democracy, which he called " mere multiplication of error", and preferred "_un_constitutional monarchy", as noted above, which effectively removes power from the people, and concentrates it into the hands of a central authority, indeed into one person. He may have favored decentralization, yet was a member of what is probably the world's most centralized religious organization; in fact, the Reformation began as a protest against the very sorts of abuse of power he warned of.

I read a very odd book years ago by a "Tolkien expert" which attempts a socio-political analysis of Middle Earth, beginning with the Shire. I happen to think this is a square peg/round hole approach, but if you were to try it, some of subjects to be examined might be:

How is the Shire run? It appears to be a "benevolent anarchy", to use T.A.Shippey's term, but there is a mayor, though his duties seem to consist mostly of "presiding over banquets". Yet it's an elected position-- who organizes the election, and how is it done?

Bilbo is used to getting his meat "cut and wrapped from the butcher" -- how does he pay him? We know that a monetary system of some kind exists -- Frodo takes some money with him on his journey. Who mints the coinage,who is in charge of determining values, denominations, purity?

Hobbits love writing and receiving letters, in fact Bilbo gets so many responses to his party invitations that the post office is "snowed under". How is this postal service run? Surely not on a volunteer basis! Are stamps used? If so ,what authority issues them? Tolkien doesn't say, and really, appears to have no interest in any of these questions, any more than the organization of the Bounders or the Shiremoot.

But the book's author doesn't address any of that, rather finding the "power center" of the Shire in Hobbiton, of all places, centered on _Bilbo --_ the Bilbo who is stated on page 2 of The Hobbit to have "lost the neighbors' respect".

This may have been due,in part, to being misled by the Shire map, which is concerned with areas where most of the action takes place, leaving out the largest and most important town in the Shire; but I think it most likely stems from confusing the central characters in a story with a supposed socio-political "power structure".

As for that structure, it seems to be based on families, or I should say, clans: the Bagginses are upper class hobbits, and the Sackville-Bagginses are clearly "nouveau-riches"; and "lower" classes certainly exist. Buckland and the Tooklands, with their Master and Thain should be examined, surely? Yet IIRC none of these are addressed. In fact I consider the entire exercise woefully misguided; as I said , Tolkien shows almost no interest in any of these things.

Romance identifies with the aristocracy, social or intellectual, in any age, and exhibits a nostalgia for an imaginative golden age in the past. This is clearly the case with much modern fantasy, particularly High Fantasy, which looks for the solution to whatever-mess-we're-in- right-now in the restoration of that golden age, the Return of the King, whether brought about by the destruction of the Ring, or the recovery of the Holy Grail. The hero may be of low status to begin with, but often turns out to be a Hidden Monarch.

Not to say there isn't something anarchic and revolutionary about the romance; that also seems to be a mysteriously persistent, and somewhat contradictory, feature: there's a theme of "overthrow" constantly lurking in the background.

I love fantasy, along with other genres, but I don't know that I'd like live in many of the worlds they describe. I certainly wouldn't want to try to create a society based on them.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Apr 25, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I love fantasy,


Oh, thank goodness. I was worried that my High Fantasy novel about my Last Heiress to the High Thrones of the Four Gales (Queen/Empress) would be immediately shot down. 



Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> The hero may be of low status to begin with, but often turns out to be a Hidden Monarch.


This certainly seems to be quite a trend, doesn't it? 



Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Romance identifies with the aristocracy, social or intellectual, in any age, and exhibits a nostalgia for an imaginative golden age in the past. This is clearly the case with much modern fantasy, particularly High Fantasy, which looks for the solution to whatever-mess-we're-in- right-now in the restoration of that golden age, the Return of the King, whether brought about by the destruction of the Ring, or the recovery of the Holy Grail.


Certainly does, huh? In that case, I hope you enjoy my WIP Novel about a brash, brassy, Huntress-in-Exile, who's cocky, loud, and reckless for most of the book, selfish and proud, too. 

Good observations, though!

CL


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 25, 2018)

I borrowed "Hidden Monarch" from the Encyclopedia of Fantasy, which has a short article:

http://sf-encyclopedia.uk/fe.php?nm=hidden_monarch

Aragorn fits the trope, and so does Sam, albeit in Low Mimetic mode.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Apr 25, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I borrowed "Hidden Monarch" from the Encyclopedia of Fantasy, which has a short article:
> 
> http://sf-encyclopedia.uk/fe.php?nm=hidden_monarch
> 
> Aragorn fits the trope, and so does Sam, albeit in Low Mimetic mode.


Very Interesting!!, I will definitely give this a look!

CL


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 25, 2018)

Off topic, but there are other themes in there which might prove illuminating.

For instance, in reading the drafts for LOTR, I was struck by the way in which Frodo seems to begin more as an "Accursed Wanderer" than the "Obsessed Seeker" he eventually became, to use two more terms from the SFE.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Apr 25, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Off topic, but there are other themes in there which might prove illuminating.
> 
> For instance, in reading the drafts for LOTR, I was struck by the way in which Frodo seems to begin more as an "Accursed Wanderer" than the "Obsessed Seeker" he eventually became, to use two more terms from the SFE.


Very Interesting!

I'm definitely checking this SFE out!

CL


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 25, 2018)

Yeah, the online version is handy -- though I like my hard copies for browsing-- a lot of interesting things turn up that I wasn't looking for!


----------



## 1stvermont (Apr 25, 2018)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Another interesting thread.
> 
> I'd hesitate to model my political views on Tolkien's, though, as he held some contradictory ideas: he sided with the* "Free Peoples", but disliked democracy*, which he called " mere multiplication of error", and preferred "_un_constitutional monarchy", as noted above, which effectively removes power from the people, and concentrates it into the hands of a central authority, indeed into one person. *He may have favored decentralization,* yet was a member of what is probably the world's most centralized religious organization; in fact, the Reformation began as a protest against the very sorts of abuse of power he warned of.



Just to be clear i am libertarian. The "free peoples" were often under a monarchy. A monarchy has ultimate power for freedom [vs a democracy] and also could lead to tyranny just as a democracy can. But if you have thew right king such as an aragorn, than a monarchy would beat out a modern "democratic"/socialist, communistic, nation like the west is in today. 

The early americans understood a democracy* would* ultimately lead to a tyrannical form of government, we see that today as we become more democratic. They founded a republic instead. 

_A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils.
Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration

In democracy . . . there are commonly
tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very
bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.
Noah Webste_r

for more see
https://wallbuilders.com/republic-v-democracy/


The height of decentralization and freedom [generally of course] was the monarchical medieval time period and early american republic, neither was a democracy. 


As for him being catholic if the catholic church is what it claimed to be, the church founded by Jesus and guided to correct doctrine [I am not catholic] than what good christian would not be a catholic? he also did not deny faults by catholics but rightly did not blame Catholicism or Christ for mans shortcomings.



Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I read a very odd book years ago by a "Tolkien expert" which attempts a socio-political analysis of Middle Earth, beginning with the Shire. I happen to think this is a square peg/round hole approach, but if you were to try it, some of subjects to be examined might be:
> 
> How is the Shire run? It appears to be a "benevolent anarchy", to use T.A.Shippey's term, but there is a mayor, though his duties seem to consist mostly of "presiding over banquets". Yet it's an elected position-- who organizes the election, and how is it done?
> 
> ...



The shire was a libertarian dream was it not?

*The Shire a Libertarian Paradise*


Tolkien said that the importance of the political significance of LOTR was second only to the religious significance. The Shire was portrayed as being a favored form of government and of old time England. As a libertarian, he created the Shire with no government or active police. The only force would be volunteer sheriffs, who carried no weapons, and wore regular clothes. They did not police the shire, but guarded boarders; mostly returning stray animals and protecting private property. In the shire’s government “families for the most part managed their own affairs.” The Hobbits enjoyed total freedom from any authoritarian government control. There were no banks, stock markets, large industry It was an libertarians dream system of an agrarian society led by country gentlemen like Bilbo, This is one of the main reasons for the attractiveness of the shire to modern readers and watchers of the movie.


“_No department of un-motorized vehicles, no internal revenue service, no government officials telling people who may and may not have laying hens in their backyards, no government schools lining up hobbit children in geometric rows to teach regimental behavior and group think, no government controlled currency, and no political institution even capable of collecting thrifts or foreign goods”
-Jonathan Witt and Jay W The Hobbit Party: The vision of freedom that Tolkien got and the west forgot_



*Scourge of the Shire Government Gone bad*


Left out of the movie is the last section of the LOTR, the scourging of the Shire. It contains much on Tolkien’s view of government. It is a section that “conservatives and progressives alike have recognized this final portion of LOTR as a critique of modern socialism.” When the hobbits return, they find there libertarian paradise controlled by an oppressive government led by Saruman, with Orcs and local evil men to help. No longer is it a peaceful happy paradise, the Shire and Hobbits are under government control. Those now controlling the Shire are referred to as “sharkey and the ruffians.”


“_The character of government is totally altered while its forms are not markedly changed. Before, the shire enjoyed easy going with max freedom and min government interference, the new regime operates through expanded restrictive rules, enforced by equally monstrously expanded military and para-military forces…the purpose of government is plainly to maintain, consolidate, and expand its own power.”
-Robert Plank, author of “The Scouring of the Shire: Tolkien’s view of fascism”_

During the scourge there are groups of “gatherers and sharers...going around counting and measuring and taking off to storage, supposedly for “fair distribution.”” Yet it just ends with, as one hobbit says, “Them getting more and we get less.”

Tolkien, the lover of all things green, showed that when liberty and private property were secure in the Shire, the landscape was beautiful and gardened. But that was “all gone” due to “The gatherers and sharers.” The new government in the Shire controlled more and more; land, taxes, and regulations. The government killed off the hobbit farming community and replaced it with industry. Tolkien also condemned the greed driven government subsidies of modern capitalist nations. With examples such as lake town where

“_Overly cozy relationship between politicians and capitalist, we we call this cronyism” such arrangements diminish economic freedom for the many by expanding monopoly power and special access to the privileged few...undermines local economic patters by uniformity favoring big corporations”
-Jonathan Witt and Jay W The Hobbit Party: The vision of freedom that Tolkien got and the west forgot_


“_Three characters...that illustrate the greed, destructive side of capitalism...Thorin Oakenshield, the money grubbing master of lake town and Smaug.... members of the powerful and privileged classes regularity have exploited those Benet them.”
-Jonathan Witt and Jay W The Hobbit Party: The vision of freedom that Tolkien got and the west forgot_







Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Romance identifies with the aristocracy, social or intellectual, in any age, and exhibits a nostalgia for an imaginative golden age in the past. This is clearly the case with much modern fantasy, particularly High Fantasy, which looks for the solution to whatever-mess-we're-in- right-now in the restoration of that golden age, the Return of the King, whether brought about by the destruction of the Ring, or the recovery of the Holy Grail. The hero may be of low status to begin with, but often turns out to be a Hidden Monarch.
> 
> Not to say there isn't something anarchic and revolutionary about the romance; that also seems to be a mysteriously persistent, and somewhat contradictory, feature: there's a theme of "overthrow" constantly lurking in the background.
> 
> *I love fantasy, along with other genres, but I don't know that I'd like live in many of the worlds they describe. I certainly wouldn't want to try to create a society based on them.*




I dont think Tolkien meant for us either. I just happen to share so much of his libertarian views [though i am not monarchist but decentralized republic/union of early america and the Hebrew tribes of the bible] despite i may differ on how best to achieve them. Having said that I would love to live in a society politically based on the shire.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 25, 2018)

Well, OK -- but you'd still have to figure out how to get the mail delivered.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 24, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Another interesting thread.
> 
> I'd hesitate to model my political views on Tolkien's, though, as he held some contradictory ideas: he sided with the "Free Peoples", but disliked democracy, which he called " mere multiplication of error", and preferred "_un_constitutional monarchy", as noted above, which effectively removes power from the people, and concentrates it into the hands of a central authority, indeed into one person. He may have favored decentralization, yet was a member of what is probably the world's most centralized religious organization; in fact, the Reformation began as a protest against the very sorts of abuse of power he warned of.
> 
> ...



Actually, it is not contradictory. As I have already discussed on another forum, unconstitutional monarchy can be easily more democratic than a representative republic. This is because governance can be described by using two criteria: a) form of government, and b) relations of power.

Typically, when we describe modern representative governments as democracies, we are invariably using the criterion a). But how correct that really is? Time and again, so-called "democratic" governments have made decisions not only without asking input from the people, but also decisions that were directly contrary to interests of those same people: such as British government opening borders to mass immigration after World War II, or Scandinavian countries creating third-world slums within their cities through their immigration policies. On the other hand, Byzantine Empire of Middle Byzantine period (cca 650. - 950. AD) had one of the most democratic governments in history of humanity, despite being formally an absolute monarchy - not because it had institutions, but because people were politically active and violent enough to _force_ the government to listen, and government itself was highly decentralized in terms of power structure, even if its form was rather centralized.

I do not see Tolkien's political views as contradictory at all. It is just that modern people are too narrow-minded.

And personally, I would like to live in Gondor.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Feb 24, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> I do not see Tolkien's political views as contradictory at all. It is just that modern people are too narrow-minded.
> 
> And personally, I would like to live in Gondor.


Rohan for me, personally.

And great post!


CM


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 24, 2020)

BTW, I found this quite interesting paper:


https://dc.swosu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=mythlore



Turns out, in Middle-Earth, you have _the entire range_ of political systems - from democracy to despotism.


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 24, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> Turns out, in Middle-Earth, you have _the entire range_ of political systems - from democracy to despotism.


Meaning, we now living in about the early Sevenths Age (assuming that the Ages since the beginning of the Fourth Age, "stated" by JRRT to have been about 6000 years ago, have shortened to about 2000 years) have learned, since then, exactly

zilch.

And looking at the daily TV news, we may need to start looking for strange rings and oddly behaving volcanos … oddly short people? am I missing anything?


----------



## 1stvermont (Feb 24, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> Rohan for me, personally.
> 
> And great post!
> 
> ...




Shire for me.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Feb 24, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Meaning, we now living in about the early Sevenths Age (assuming that the Ages since the beginning of the Fourth Age, "stated" by JRRT to have been about 6000 year, ago have shortened to about 2000 years) have learned, since then, exactly
> 
> zilch.
> 
> And looking at the daily TV news, we may need to start looking for strange rings and oddly behaving volcanos … oddly short people? am I missing anything?


Tyrannical Despots.


CL


----------



## 1stvermont (Feb 24, 2020)

What if I told people that monarchies were far more free and self-governing then democracies. And as a libertarian-minded individual who saw control of others as evil, Tolkien would, of course, be attracted to this form of system. Modern democracies are tyrannical as compared to the western European medieval feudal monarchies. 


*Monarchy vs Democracy A Critical Look at Democracy*



Total War Center Forums



*Monarchy vs Democracy -The Case for Feudal Monarchies*



Total War Center Forums


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 24, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> Tyrannical Despots.
> CL


Eh? We have no shortage of tyrannical despots currently, and now in places just decades ago one would not have suspected to find them.
Nah, I think weirdo volcanos are the more relevant things to be looking for as portents for a potential disaster matching that at the end of the Third Age ...


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 24, 2020)

1stvermont said:


> *The Case for Feudal Monarchies*


Feudal monarchies since perhaps the Old (1st) Empire in Egypt, at the very latest since the New (3rd) Empire there, have disqualified themselves by producing gibbering morons through incest all too soon. Even without this self-destructive habit, the percentage of monarch or aristocrats not falling too easily into the tyrannical despot category is miniscule. "Power corrupts" is the truest statement about humanity, so limiting durations of exercise of power is its most desparate necessity.


----------



## 1stvermont (Feb 24, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Feudal monarchies since perhaps the Old (1st) Empire in Egypt, at the very latest since the New (3rd) Empire there, have disqualified themselves by producing gibbering morons through incest all too soon. Even without this self-destructive habit, the percentage of monarch or aristocrats not falling too easily into the tyrannical despot category is miniscule. "Power corrupts" is the truest statement about humanity, so limiting durations of exercise of power is its most desparate necessity.




I was more referring to the western European catholic feudal monarchies. These were the longest-lasting libertarian societies ever known. Far freer then modern democracies. Power indeed corrupts, that is why power must be limited, democracies have proven unable to do so. Decentralized feudal catholic monarchies did. When we are taught of monarchies as a despot, they refer to absolute monarchies. But even they were freer then democracies.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Feb 24, 2020)

1stvermont said:


> What if I told people that monarchies were far more free and self-governing then democracies. And as a libertarian-minded individual who saw control of others as evil, Tolkien would, of course, be attracted to this form of system. Modern democracies are tyrannical as compared to the western European medieval feudal monarchies.
> 
> 
> *Monarchy vs Democracy A Critical Look at Democracy*
> ...


The Monarchist in me approves.


CL


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Feb 24, 2020)

1stvermont said:


> I was more referring to the western European catholic feudal monarchies. These were the longest-lasting libertarian societies ever known. Far freer then modern democracies. Power indeed corrupts, that is why power must be limited, democracies have proven unable to do so. Decentralized feudal catholic monarchies did. When we are taught of monarchies as a despot, they refer to absolute monarchies. But even they were freer then democracies.


The Catholic me approves.

CL


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 24, 2020)

1stvermont said:


> *Monarchy vs Democracy A Critical Look at Democracy*


I took a look at the link under this one.
Practically every statement I read (I did not read them all, by any means, but I'm guessing their tenor does not change much) turns reality since about 1980 totally on its head.
For some statements this may be excused - G.K. Chesterton is a name I recognize from readings about JRRT, for example - by being from an era before that.
It reminds me of one of the three statements attributed to Abraham Lincoln about people and fooling them:
"You cannot fool all of the people all of the time".
True - and perhaps one of the most irrelevant statements about the actual human condition that may have ever been uttered. "*Some* of the people all of the time" is what's ruining our world.


----------



## Aldarion (Feb 25, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Meaning, we now living in about the early Sevenths Age (assuming that the Ages since the beginning of the Fourth Age, "stated" by JRRT to have been about 6000 years ago, have shortened to about 2000 years) have learned, since then, exactly
> 
> zilch.
> 
> And looking at the daily TV news, we may need to start looking for strange rings and oddly behaving volcanos … oddly short people? am I missing anything?



Basically, yes.



1stvermont said:


> What if I told people that monarchies were far more free and self-governing then democracies. And as a libertarian-minded individual who saw control of others as evil, Tolkien would, of course, be attracted to this form of system. Modern democracies are tyrannical as compared to the western European medieval feudal monarchies.
> 
> 
> *Monarchy vs Democracy A Critical Look at Democracy*
> ...



That would not surprise me. In fact it is something I knew already. But always nice to read somebody else's opinions, especially as detailed as that.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (Feb 25, 2020)

Tolkien had a profound imagination, but I don't think he really engaged with modern political thought in any sustained or consistent way. I can't say I blame him...

The Shire may have been indeed a libertarian paradise, as someone said, but I can't imagine much shagging outside of marriage goes on there. That ain't too paradisaical...


----------



## 1stvermont (Feb 25, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> I took a look at the link under this one.
> Practically every statement I read (I did not read them all, by any means, but I'm guessing their tenor does not change much) turns reality since about 1980 totally on its head.
> For some statements this may be excused - G.K. Chesterton is a name I recognize from readings about JRRT, for example - by being from an era before that.
> It reminds me of one of the three statements attributed to Abraham Lincoln about people and fooling them:
> ...




Thanks for having a look. Since you were not very specific I cannot really comment or defend my thread. Could you be more specific on what no longer applies to democracy post-1980? of course also since this is a Tolkien thread, I think looking at democracy in Tolkiens time can help us understand why some were monarchists. Of course, to me post-1980 just gives me personally more cause to be a monarchist. I am a recent convert.



Aldarion said:


> That would not surprise me. In fact it is something I knew already. But always nice to read somebody else's opinions, especially as detailed as that.



That is very kind of you. I am in fact getting scores of original sources and other works on medieval monarchies to go much deeper.



Sir Eowyn said:


> Tolkien had a profound imagination, but I don't think he really engaged with modern political thought in any sustained or consistent way. I can't say I blame him...
> 
> The Shire may have been indeed a libertarian paradise, as someone said, but I can't imagine much shagging outside of marriage goes on there. That ain't too paradisaical...



I think he viewed modern politics as a whole as ugly and corrupt. And if you read my thread I blame democracy itself for what politics has become. It causes us to hate each other. 

It was me that said the shire was a libertarian paradise, but I think it a false assumption that a libertarian paradise must include "shagging outside of marriage." Many would say liberty is the choice to choose between right and wrong. If someone has the choice to choose adultery or not is liberty, they don't have to commit adultery itself to have liberty, they just need the choice. And from a Christian perspective [as i am] I would say studied even validate, the most often and best sex is within marriage. It also avoids many downfalls.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Feb 25, 2020)

1stvermont said:


> Thanks for having a look. Since you were not very specific I cannot really comment or defend my thread. Could you be more specific on what no longer applies to democracy post-1980? of course also since this is a Tolkien thread, I think looking at democracy in Tolkiens time can help us understand why some were monarchists. Of course, to me post-1980 just gives me personally more cause to be a monarchist. I am a recent convert.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I knew I liked you, mate.


CL


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 25, 2020)

1stvermont said:


> .... Of course, to me post-1980 just gives me personally more cause to be a monarchist. I am a recent convert. ...


Perhaps I'll give it a more extensive look. It's just that I recognized some names, and after checking Wiki was able to get an inkling to some more.
Quite a few whose acceptability as reliable sources is seriously question.
And as to post 1980, let me give you a very abbreviated version of my take on it:
When the western world began a slide back into corrupt (quasi-) feudalism.


----------



## 1stvermont (Feb 25, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Perhaps I'll give it a more extensive look. It's just that I recognized some names, and after checking Wiki was able to get an inkling to some more.
> Quite a few whose acceptability as reliable sources is seriously question.
> And as to post 1980, let me give you a very abbreviated version of my take on it:
> When the western world began a slide back into corrupt (quasi-) feudalism.




I see and yes, libertarians tend to get a bad name among those who disagree with them. But I do think I quote from a wide variety. I am not so much concerned with what some wiki article says about an author but rather what is true. I also believe people can have their own opinions and should be heard. I was very unaccepting of monarchists when I first started reading them but eventually became convinced. Things started to click and make sense to me about why we are where we are and how we got here. Before I had never read anyone critical of democracy but now I can see the news or hear people complain about another political party or something a politician has done, and I just think now, well that is the result of democracy and it is inherent in the system. I see why so many cant find the solution they seek because it cannot happen in our current system. 


I would be interested in hearing more on your thoughts of post-1980 moving towards feudalism. If so I say that would be a great thing. Often the feudal system is misunderstood. I am not sure how we are moving towards it today.


----------



## Olorgando (Feb 27, 2020)

1stvermont said:


> I was more referring to the western European catholic feudal monarchies. These were the longest-lasting libertarian societies ever known. Far freer then modern democracies. Power indeed corrupts, that is why power must be limited, democracies have proven unable to do so. Decentralized feudal catholic monarchies did. When we are taught of monarchies as a despot, they refer to absolute monarchies. But even they were freer then democracies.


"... western European catholic feudal monarchies …"
As this rings absolutely no bells with me, I must ask you which specific historical monarchies you mean, with which rulers, and during which time periods.

And I have a serious problem with the term "libertarian".
As far as I know, it is an even newer term than "liberal" - something that has quite different definitions at least west and east of the Atlantic Ocean, perhaps even the English Channel.
Back-projecting modern terms to earlier times (as I have the impression you are doing - perhaps I am wrong) is a very iffy thing to do.

And especially the term "free" when used by a self-professed libertarian - I own a copy of Milton Friedman's 1962 book "Capitalism and Freedom" - has struck me as Orwellian double-speak.
To be provocative, perhaps belligerently so in your view, some of the most fervent libertarians would have included Al Capone during the American (alcohol) Prohibition.
Or that guy Pablo Escobar from Columbia. Or any number of heads of organized crime.
The English language does have the term "white-collar-crime".
Where the border between that and Capone, Escobar & Co. runs seems to me to be one of the most titanic shoving matches of the the last odd century.


----------



## 1stvermont (Feb 28, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> "... western European catholic feudal monarchies …"
> As this rings absolutely no bells with me, I must ask you which specific historical monarchies you mean, with which rulers, and during which time periods.
> 
> And I have a serious problem with the term "libertarian".
> ...




Generally, I am referring to Western Europe around 850-1350 A.D. The system changed at various times and places within each area but the general time period during feudalism under monarchies that were catholic.

Very true and you are correct to ask for a proper definition. I was just using the term in the modern American [I am from U.S] as a term many understand that closely resembled the political systems of western Europe in the time periods I spoke of. I am not nor would the societies of that time be "libertarian" as in the libertarian party of today. But they do most resemble them than any other political system under democracy that we have. Yes it was often referred to as "classical liberalism" but really the medieval monarchies were their own brand. So basically more liberty and less government control and regulation. I don't mean to say as republicans claim less government, I mean to say they would see much of what our government does today as unthinkable and tyrannical in their time. They would view us "freemen" as slaves. They were truly free people, they had true liberty unlike anyone in a democracy thinks they have.


When I spoke of "free" I meant the medievalist was free from government control/regulation and had a true self goverment. Under democracy nobody is free. I don't know enough of Al Capone's politics, but to stand against the government regulating alcohol would indeed fit classical liberalism and modern libertarianism. You will see today libertarians stand against the government regulating marijuana. Basically we tell kids drugs will ruin your life so if we catch you doing them, we will ruin your life by throwing you in a modern version of slavery, jail. Supported by taxpayers. This coming from a person who does not do drugs [former addict] and does not see marijuana as harmless at all. To me the solution is to get the person right with God, not government laws. At the same time as a decentralist [as were the medivalist] I think each community can make there own laws how they wish and I nor any politician, should be able to force them to conform to my image just because I have more friends [democracy]. I know even less of Escobar. I think perhaps you have mistaken libertarian for anarchy. I would more look at it as medieval self-government and decentralization, vs modern centralization and cohesion. I think my thread goes into detail on this.




Total War Center Forums


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Feb 28, 2020)

Hey y'all, thanks for keeping it civil but this is steering away from discussing Tolkien's political views of the day to more discussing current politics and our personal beliefs. Can we get back to discussing Tolkien in this thread? Feel free to move this to a pm though, just want to keep things friendly and Tolkien related


----------



## Olorgando (Mar 5, 2020)

Erestor Arcamen said:


> Hey y'all, thanks for keeping it civil but this is steering away from discussing Tolkien's political views of the day to more discussing current politics and our personal beliefs. Can we get back to discussing Tolkien in this thread? Feel free to move this to a pm though, just want to keep things friendly and Tolkien related


Actually, medievalism and libertarianism are quite relevant to "Tolkien's Political Views", as far as I can tell. In one letter, he actually considered himself to be in sympathy with anarchy, but the definition did sound very much like libertarianism (he disavowed the slightest sympathies for "whiskered men throwing bombs", the "classical" image of "the anarchist" in his times, perhaps). It reminds me (by now a tad dimly) about a TV documentary about Bob Dylan, perhaps his first tour in GB in the 1960s (during which he met Donovan (Leitch), who may have at the time been considered in GB to be their answer to Dylan - the dimness grows). The scene I remember is Dylan - in a train or perhaps bus ride - being very pensive about some article in a GB paper calling him "anarchist". He apparently had realized that, in contrast to the US, less than ten years after the lunatic McCarthy witch-hunts, "Communist" was a term in a country with a still decidedly socialist if not Marxist Labour Party that elicited shrugs. "Anarchist" was another matter, as he appeared to realize - though the vast majority of his American entourage apparently did not.

JRRT did not come by his views, political or otherwise, by simply thinking things out in isolation. He was influenced, as we all are, by what he heard and read. So I would think that as justified it is to consider Beowulf (probably written in the early part of the period mentioned by 1stvermont above) or the Icelandic Eddas and Sagas as influences on his writing, so we can hypothesize about influences on other aspects that would influence the title of this thread.

To get nitpicky, Erestor, shouldn't you have shot down this thread from the first post? I mean, it was so brazen as to actually include the inflammatory word "Politics" in its title!
(If you suspect that I'm now channeling John Cleese ... erm ...)


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Jul 24, 2020)

Or maybe we could infer JRRT's ideology via his works^^
As you see, for instance, like Numenor, the more positive a king is described, the more respect he provide to the Congress or Senate(I only got mandarin version in hands now, I'll prune it later), proving JRRT supports democracy.
Yeah, as you see, the good guys of ME were named "Free People Of ME"^^


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Jul 24, 2020)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> Or maybe we could infer JRRT's ideology via his works^^
> As you see, for instance, like Numenor, the more positive a king is described, the more respect he provide to the Congress or Senate(I only got mandarin version in hands now, I'll prune it later), proving JRRT supports democracy.
> Yeah, as you see, the good guys of ME were named "Free People Of ME"^^


From his wikipedia page:


> 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."[104]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien#cite_note-106


CL


----------



## rollinstoned (Aug 2, 2020)

The discussion of his views are completely invalid

as he is dead, as he was born a very long time ago AND you can't cram the context of our world today into the world that he lived in. It's just stupid. 

Tolkien will have held views that are disagreeable as today in our context specific things are no longer frowned upon.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Aug 3, 2020)

rollinstoned said:


> The discussion of his views are completely invalid
> 
> as he is dead, as he was born a very long time ago AND you can't cram the context of our world today into the world that he lived in. It's just stupid.
> 
> Tolkien will have held views that are disagreeable as today in our context specific things are no longer frowned upon.


It helps us understand him better.


And I probably already made the point of his views quite succinctly.


CL


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 3, 2020)

rollinstoned said:


> The discussion of his views are completely invalid
> 
> as he is dead, as he was born a very long time ago AND you can't cram the context of our world today into the world that he lived in. It's just stupid.
> 
> Tolkien will have held views that are disagreeable as today in our context specific things are no longer frowned upon.


Definitely disagree about the "completely".

Where you are quite right is that taking things out of context is rarely a good idea (but a favorite trick of some less reputable sections of "the media").
Even today, there are many contexts from other regions of the world that "we" - which I take to mean basically a Western European and North American context - have difficulty understanding (and vice versa). Not that any such "Western European and North American" context is even remotely unified.

However, it is possible to a degree to understand a context different to "ours".
One reason why it is possible to reconstruct to a degree JRRT's context (or any other earlier context) it that at least some of it still exists until today. Some of what "we" believe to have learned from intervening events, our conclusions, are not shared by others. JRRT basically lived from the pre-WW I era to almost the end of the Vietnam War. More to the point, about his Catholicism, he was unhappy with quite a few of the changes instituted by the Second Vatican Council initiated by Pope John XXIII, and which convened from 1962 to 1965. Here probably even a huge number of Catholics in the last 55 years would disagree with him.

This parallel continuity was analyzed by Swiss Theologian Hans Küng in his huge tomes on Judaism (1991), Christianity (1994) and Islam (2006). Küng takes the concept of the paradigm shift presented by American physicist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn in the latter's 1962 book _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ and applies it to religions. The major difference is that a scientific paradigm shift, the classical example being from Ptolemaic earth-centered astronomy to Copernican sun-centered astronomy, new supplants old. In contrast to such scientific paradigms, a newer paradigm in religion (or more generally human affairs) will not necessarily supplant the older one(s). Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism stand as the second, third and fourth paradigms of Christianity in this concept, all still existing in parallel until today.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Aug 3, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Here probably even a huge number of Catholics in the last 55 years would disagree with him


Ironically enough, and very slowly, many are starting to agree with Tolkien now.


CL


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 3, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> Ironically enough, and very slowly, many are starting to agree with Tolkien now.
> CL


Those that remain. Membership in churches in Western Germany (pre-reunification) had been dropping since 1970, despite a slowly rising population. That trend continued after reunification, even accelerated. Basically the same development in Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and the UK.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Aug 3, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Those that remain. Membership in churches in Western Germany (pre-reunification) had been dropping since 1970, despite a slowly rising population. That trend continued after reunification, even accelerated. Basically the same development in Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and the UK.


Well, I guess more in America, yeah, but even then, yes, those who remain.


CL


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 3, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> Well, I guess more in America, yeah, but even then, yes, those who remain.
> 
> 
> CL


UK and USA are a bit different, I'm pretty sure after the Charismatic Movement, rate of Christians have kept increasing. After all, USA was the head of this action.



Olorgando said:


> Those that remain. Membership in churches in Western Germany (pre-reunification) had been dropping since 1970, despite a slowly rising population. That trend continued after reunification, even accelerated. Basically the same development in Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and the UK.


Even after the Charismatic Movement?


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 4, 2020)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> ...
> Even after the Charismatic Movement?


I'm not quite sure what that term means. Most likely they belong to the "other Christian denominations" besides Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox, which would be about 0.9 million out of the total population of over 83 million, making them a fringe group. And not necessarily a unified group. If I read the article right, the largest group has about 333 thousand members, the next largest about 167 thousand, the rest are splinter groups of under 100 thousand.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 4, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> I'm not quite sure what that term means. Most likely they belong to the "other Christian denominations" besides Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox, which would be about 0.9 million out of the total population of over 83 million, making them a fringe group. And not necessarily a unified group. If I read the article right, the largest group has about 333 thousand members, the next largest about 167 thousand, the rest are splinter groups of under 100 thousand.


Hmmm...can Joel Osteen and his church get considered as 1 group?Or is his church shall get considered as Protestants?
In addition, the Charismatic Movement is a internationally Christian campaign's reform by adopting Charismatic and other Avant-garde stuff(EX: contemporary praise and worship) into their own churches, making the whole churches members have a dramatic increase as an result. 








Charismatic movement - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 5, 2020)

It seems most who would describe themselves as "Charismatics" have remained within their respective denominations, becoming a "subset" of these. The only specific number I could find in both the English and the German Wiki articles states that about 120 million Catholics worldwide are considered or consider themselves to be "Charismatics".

I could find no corresponding numbers for Roman Catholics and Protestants in Germany. The development since reunification in 1990 have been as follows:

1990 app. 28.5 M RK, app. 29.4 M PR (app. 57.9 M combined), app. 16 M no religious affiliation;
in percentages this was 35,4% RK, 36.9% PR (72.3% combined), 20% none, out of a total population of app. 79.75 M.

2018/19 app, 22.6 M RK, app. 20.t M PR, (app. 43.3 M combined), app. 31 M none;
in percentages 27.2% RK, 24.9% PR (52.1% combined), over 37% none, out of a total population of app. 83+ M.

Whatever role the respective Charismatic movements may play in their denominations, they have not stopped the losses in membership.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 7, 2020)

1stvermont said:


> What if I told people that monarchies were far more free and self-governing then democracies. And as a libertarian-minded individual who saw control of others as evil, Tolkien would, of course, be attracted to this form of system. Modern democracies are tyrannical as compared to the western European medieval feudal monarchies.
> 
> 
> *Monarchy vs Democracy A Critical Look at Democracy*
> ...





1stvermont said:


> Thanks for having a look. Since you were not very specific I cannot really comment or defend my thread. Could you be more specific on what no longer applies to democracy post-1980? of course also since this is a Tolkien thread, I think looking at democracy in Tolkiens time can help us understand why some were monarchists. Of course, to me post-1980 just gives me personally more cause to be a monarchist. I am a recent convert.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I beg your pardon...ehhh...maybe stupidly...is Constitutional monarchy belong to Democracy? 😅 😅 😅 😅
Yeah...ehh...seriously...at least my student book and all educational sources claim so...Monarchy is defined according to how a state head appear, and Democracy is defined how a state's government work, this means these 2 aren't contracted concept, so...why are you guys comparing these 2 ideology?😅😅😅
Shouldn't you guys compare Democracy between Despotism?😅😅😅

By the way, this doesn't involve personal ideology, so Forum Host, can I post it here? ^^


----------



## Aldarion (Aug 7, 2020)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> I beg your pardon...ehhh...maybe stupidly...is Constitutional monarchy belong to Democracy? 😅 😅 😅 😅
> Yeah...ehh...seriously...at least my student book and all educational sources claim so...Monarchy is defined according to how a state head appear, and Democracy is defined how a state's government work, this means these 2 aren't contracted concept, so...why are you guys comparing these 2 ideology?😅😅😅
> Shouldn't you guys compare Democracy between Despotism?😅😅😅



Aristotle actually had six forms of government:






I cannot help but think that Tolkien would agree with this - he made a point that power corrupts, and this can happen no matter the form of government. Good autocratic rule (Monarchy) is better than bad pluralistic rule (Democracy), and is at worst comparable to Polity. [1]

If you look at Tolkien's autocracies, they actually have two forms: monarchy and tyranny. Sauron is a tyrant, as was Ar-Pharazon; both ruled by fear and force. Compare this to Elven monarchies, or early Numenorean monarchy. Tolkien's monarchies are very clearly not absolutist. There may be no legal limits on authority of the monarch, but - much like with Byzantine Empire - there are _customary_ limits on his power. Monarch only deserves obedience for as long as he rules justly; but if he abandons his duties (and God), then rebellion against monarch is fully justified.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 7, 2020)

One thing is definitely true about democracy: for it to function you need a well-educated, literate population. And well-educated means above all, learning to think critically. All forms of authoritarianism suppress this as far as they are able, try to control the information that the population can get. Some sectors of all societies, even democracies, have an authoritarian mind-set to a degree, they do not want the population to get all the information that would be of interest to them. That is why I have a very dim view of the advertising industry.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 7, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> Aristotle actually had six forms of government:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK...thx...so this means my text book isn't accurately correct 😅 😅 😅 , yeah after all, text books are multiple-handed source of information, while big guys like Aristotle's theory might compare to periodical, thx


----------



## Aldarion (Aug 7, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> One thing is definitely true about democracy: for it to function you need a well-educated, literate population. And well-educated means above all, learning to think critically. All forms of authoritarianism suppress this as far as they are able, try to control the information that the population can get. Some sectors of all societies, even democracies, have an authoritarian mind-set to a degree, they do not want the population to get all the information that would be of interest to them. That is why I have a very dim view of the advertising industry.



If anything, in democracy, authoritharianism is even more pronounced. SInce people are (supposed to be) politically active, politicians have a vested interest in controlling people directly. This then leads to efforts at political centralization, state-controlled education, and state- and/or corporate- -controlled media. This, and highly pronounced investment of state into private life, education etc., would - I suspect - be anathema to Tolkien.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 7, 2020)

You make this sound like the form of control under Stalinism or in Nazi Germany. There are *huge* differences. And maybe you want to take a look at the doings of the post-Napoleonic monarchies: authoritarianism was rampant then. And with it corruption, as the two are almost Siamese twins.
Corporate control over what are rightly termed "public goods" - and even to Adam Smith it was clear that there are some things the totally overrated "free markets" (something of a myth anyway if you look more closely) simply stink at (those are my words, not Smith's, he was a bit more diplomatic) - is definitely to be watched closely. Yes, that means regulation, because total deregulation simply leads to organized crime.


----------



## Aldarion (Aug 7, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> You make this sound like the form of control under Stalinism or in Nazi Germany. There are *huge* differences. And maybe you want to take a look at the doings of the post-Napoleonic monarchies: authoritarianism was rampant then. And with it corruption, as the two are almost Siamese twins.
> Corporate control over what are rightly termed "public goods" - and even to Adam Smith it was clear that there are some things the totally overrated "free markets" (something of a myth anyway if you look more closely) simply stink at (those are my words, not Smith's, he was a bit more diplomatic) - is definitely to be watched closely. Yes, that means regulation, because total deregulation simply leads to organized crime.



That is why I personally have usually talked about political centralization or decentralization. Advantage of feudal monarchy is that it is decentralized; as I explained in the blog post I linked:


> Since anyone can gain power by joining a gang – that is, a political party – there is less resistance to government abuse in a democratic system. In a monarchical society – especially feudal one – people gained membership of a certain social circle through birth (or elevation). As a result, different circles (King – magnates – minor nobility – Church in a feudal society; Emperor – nobility of capital – nobility of provinces – thematic armies – Church in Byzantine Empire) kept each other in check; the exact system of “checks and balances” which is so often posited as an advantage of a democratic political system. These circles were also kept in check from the outside. Because likelyhood of joining the abusers was so low, there was less willingness to tolerate abuses from those outside any given circle. Further, these social circles had genuinely different interests due to their differing social positions. In a democracy, all “political parties” are members of the same class / caste and thus have, in effect, same social interests; differences in political programmes are nothing but lies told to gain votes, and they disappear as soon as government is formed. The only actual differences which may exist reflect interests of parties’ sponsors; most specifically, whether they are sponsored by national or international capital. In a feudal or similar system, differences are genuine.



Basically, in a _feudal_ monarchy, you have pluralism of authority coupled with pluralism of power. In democracy you have the same, _in ideal conditions_. But in practice, democracy - due to intrusive government and insufficient plurality of government - ends up much closer to absolutist monarchy than to feudal one.

All of this comes to what Tolkien said: _*"the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity." *_Problem with modern-day democracy is that government is highly intrusive. You have multiplication of laws and regulations, which means that despite spreading out of power among many different individuals, government as such ends up being overly powerful. Take a look at what government today tries to regulate; it is unlikely you will find something (other than breathing) which is not under governmental regulation. You may say corporate control requires government to counteract it, but in reality, two are not that different - and are oftentimes allied. In fact, when you look at US or EU governmental regulation, allegedly intended to protect the customers, you can see one common thread: it leads to massive expenses, thus being advantageous to large corporations while disadvantaging small producers. Likewise, state and large corporations cooperate in attempts to censor Internet. What this means is that government and corporations cooperate in destruction of whatever little democracy may actually exist.

I believe Tolkien saw this happening - though situation today is far worse than it was back then. Thus it is no surprise that he would return to medieval tropes and, ultimately, to outright anarchism of Shire. Gondor may be the most centralized polity of all the "good guys" in Lord of the Rings, but if you want to look at true centralization, you should look at Mordor: that one is nothing short of a copy-pasted modern state, with its excessive governmental control, reduction of people to numbers, and oppressive state apparatus. The only difference between the two is general quality of life, but even that may not have been true in late 1800s / early 1900s.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 7, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> ...
> You may say corporate control requires government to counteract it, but in reality, two are not that different - and are oftentimes allied. In fact, when you look at US or EU governmental regulation, allegedly intended to protect the customers, you can see one common thread: it leads to massive expenses, thus being advantageous to large corporations while disadvantaging small producers. Likewise, state and large corporations cooperate in attempts to censor Internet. What this means is that government and corporations cooperate in destruction of whatever little democracy may actually exist.
> ...


I may be misunderstanding you here, and if so, say so.
But I will definitely agree with the statement that corporate (large, often multinational companies) influence has a massive corrosive effect on democracy (not that rich merchants in earlier centuries were any better). Those big corporations are precisely one main sector in any society that I termed authoritarian in my earlier post. Former WW II general and at the time outgoing US president Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against the military–industrial complex in his valedictory address in January 1961. Seems it's now occasionally expanded to the military–industrial–media complex. Basically the result in all countries to enforce anti-trust legislation, often accompanied by a rollback in regulations restricting donations to political parties by corrupt legislatures. A vicious cycle.
But I doubt that any feudal monarchies could have held that up - except if you assume that something like industrialization would have been impossible under such rule - something I wouldn't rule out.
You speak about _ideal_ conditions for a democracy above. I have the feeling that you are being very idealistic about feudal monarchies, to be truthful. I seriously doubt that any existed in the form you postulate for more than (very) brief periods. And as for any freedom, perhaps for a tiny, and I'll say it provocatively, parasitic aristocratic class. The great mass of the people were basically serfs working in agriculture. If you hypothetically able to take a time machine back to that feudal period, unless you could be part of that tiny minority at the top, you would probably be hopping back into the time machine in almost no time. In fact even the kings and the aristocracy had it a lot worse than we, at least in the west, have it now. I have the definite feeling that there are some unrealistically romantic, even fantasy (may have something to do with it) assumptions about every era before the post-WW II one.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 7, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> I may be misunderstanding you here, and if so, say so.
> But I will definitely agree with the statement that corporate (large, often multinational companies) influence has a massive corrosive effect on democracy (not that rich merchants in earlier centuries were any better). Those big corporations are precisely one main sector in any society that I termed authoritarian in my earlier post. Former WW II general and at the time outgoing US president Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against the military–industrial complex in his valedictory address in January 1961. Seems it's now occasionally expanded to the military–industrial–media complex. Basically the result in all countries to enforce anti-trust legislation, often accompanied by a rollback in regulations restricting donations to political parties by corrupt legislatures. A vicious cycle.


Hmmm...so legalization of personal arms isn't able to intimidate any corruption. I'm not sure JRRT has implied massive civic militarization(Shire's revolt against Saruman?) is always the most effective way to screw corruption?



Olorgando said:


> But I doubt that any feudal monarchies could have held that up - except if you assume that something like industrialization would have been impossible under such rule - something I wouldn't rule out.
> You speak about _ideal_ conditions for a democracy above. I have the feeling that you are being very idealistic about feudal monarchies, to be truthful. I seriously doubt that any existed in the form you postulate for more than (very) brief periods. And as for any freedom, perhaps for a tiny, and I'll say it provocatively, parasitic aristocratic class. The great mass of the people were basically serfs working in agriculture. If you hypothetically able to take a time machine back to that feudal period, unless you could be part of that tiny minority at the top, you would probably be hopping back into the time machine in almost no time. In fact even the kings and the aristocracy had it a lot worse than we, at least in the west, have it now. I have the definite feeling that there are some unrealistically romantic, even fantasy (may have something to do with it) assumptions about every era before the post-WW II one.


Or maybe you can consider the so-called feudal system as Middle-Age version of composed of "citizen-military-land or property owners" system. With those who provide obligation(mostly military service) gain the rule power, a balance between power and obligation. Yeah, obviously, typical and successful Polities?(Or commonly called democracy) always have such system(USA, Swiss,etc). I'm not sure JRRT's mention about how Shire overthrowing Saruman's reign is implying such concept.^^
What do you think?^^


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 7, 2020)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> ...
> I'm not sure JRRT's mention about how Shire overthrowing Saruman's reign is implying such concept.^^


JRRT, as far as I can tell, idealized the Shire in that it was a pre-industrial agricultural society.
But he certainly didn't idealize it in *all* its aspects.
He certainly showed it as being rather defenseless against outside aggressors (as was Bree), protected by the Dúnedain Rangers without knowing anything about them (Shire) or very little, and much of that wrong (Bree).
He also at least once (in a letter?) described the Shire Hobbits in a way that their physical smallness was supposed to reflect on the small, very parochial reach of their imagination (read lack of reach). Which is why they were not able to really do anything against even Lotho "Pimple" Sackville-Baggins, and never mind Saruman. It needed just four Hobbits with "outside experience" (mainly Merry and Pippin) to put an end to the ruffians and "Sharkey".
Despite what the more imperceptive critics have wrongly accused him of, JRRT was not one to idealize anything in our world (or his invented one), as by his religious beliefs he saw it as a fallen one (a conclusion one can rightly arrive at by other trains of thought, too).


----------



## Aldarion (Aug 7, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> But I doubt that any feudal monarchies could have held that up - except if you assume that something like industrialization would have been impossible under such rule - something I wouldn't rule out.



Monarchy has appeal in literature in that it is relatively clear-cut: king is ultimately responsible for the state, and will often get blamed even if he is not actually responsible. At least that was the case in Byzantine Empire (Emperor was the regular scapegoat). This creates pressure to make sure that state actually performs - pressure that elected, four-years-a-term politicians simply do not feel.



Olorgando said:


> You speak about _ideal_ conditions for a democracy above. I have the feeling that you are being very idealistic about feudal monarchies, to be truthful. I seriously doubt that any existed in the form you postulate for more than (very) brief periods. And as for any freedom, perhaps for a tiny, and I'll say it provocatively, parasitic aristocratic class. The great mass of the people were basically serfs working in agriculture. If you hypothetically able to take a time machine back to that feudal period, unless you could be part of that tiny minority at the top, you would probably be hopping back into the time machine in almost no time. In fact even the kings and the aristocracy had it a lot worse than we, at least in the west, have it now. I have the definite feeling that there are some unrealistically romantic, even fantasy (may have something to do with it) assumptions about every era before the post-WW II one.



There are unrealistically romantic assumptions about every era, including the one we are living in. It is true that I am more familiar with Byzantine Empire than with feudal kingsoms. Still, from what I know about the latter, in most cases even in them free peasants outnumbered the serfs (it was the case in Republic of Poljica, at the very least - 40 families of nobles, 120 families of serfs, 800 families of free peasants). This means that for most of populace, parasitic aristocratic class - which was living off their serfs - was simply not something worth concerning with. And even serfs actually had significant personal rights and freedoms - the only limitation was that they could not sell land (it was not their) and they had to give portion of produce to overlords (tithe - 1/10 to noble, 1/10 to Church). For a long time, serfs actually could leave their land and switch to another noble if current one abused them, and they always could challenge their senior / overlord in a court of law.

Today we do have greater quality of life, but that is thanks to technological advancement. When it comes to political freedom etc., I do not see any improvement.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 7, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> ...
> Still, from what I know about the latter, in most cases even in them free peasants outnumbered the serfs (it was the case in Republic of Poljica, at the very least
> ...
> Today we do have greater quality of life, but that is thanks to technological advancement. When it comes to political freedom etc., I do not see any improvement.


That may be, at least for the Republic of Poljica in what is now Croatia. But that anything similar was true for the great mass of Europe - I remain highly skeptical. For short periods of time. depending on the greed of the local parasite class, perhaps in many places. The Republic of Poljica seems to be notable precisely for its having endured for almost 400 years, if I read the article correctly.
The Great Plague (or "Black Death") beginning in 1347 had, horrific as it was, probably one effect that contributed to the end of feudalism:
" As a result of the decimation in the populace the value of the working class increased, and commoners came to enjoy more freedom. To answer the increased need for labour, workers travelled in search of the most favourable position economically."
No more "excess population" that could for all intents and purposes be de facto "enslaved". That is why I referred to the post-1980 (more correctly it would be the post-1990) period as "neo-feudalism". Suddenly, whole masses of desperate people were available for de-facto slave labor, be it in countries formerly calling themselves "communist", be it in countries that didn't, but were leery of exposing their volatile populations to the highly white-collar-criminal "Anglo-Saxon" variant of capitalism which is so difficult to distinguish from "official" organized crime.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 8, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> Monarchy has appeal in literature in that it is relatively clear-cut: king is ultimately responsible for the state, and will often get blamed even if he is not actually responsible. At least that was the case in Byzantine Empire (Emperor was the regular scapegoat). This creates pressure to make sure that state actually performs - pressure that elected, four-years-a-term politicians simply do not feel.


Hmmm...I wonder if the kings need someone for their surveillance. After all, it's certain kings might corrupt as well(Like Narmacil I).
In addition, I wonder if JRRT might imply that it's useless against evil when it becomes the will of the majority(Tar-Palantir's failure of reform Numenor, looking much like good kings of the Israel southern kingdom, in particular Josiah). So could JRRT, under such thick Biblical culture, considers the will of majority is the key for good rule?I wonder. 
Of course it's another matter that if JRRT believes that "ruled by many"(polity) is much better cure, for we got no certain proof that JRRT provides any nation saved by the majority's will(Like French Revolution and 1911's Revolution of China) in his works. 
Unless we assume that maybe Dark Numenorains learned their lessons from their kinds perish with their fallen hometown and return from their evil deeds to Valar and join Gondor, or even if Rómendacil II is a prime minister elected by citizens like modern days, saving the whole Gondor from his corrupted king Narmacil I.




Aldarion said:


> There are unrealistically romantic assumptions about every era, including the one we are living in. It is true that I am more familiar with Byzantine Empire than with feudal kingsoms. Still, from what I know about the latter, in most cases even in them free peasants outnumbered the serfs (it was the case in Republic of Poljica, at the very least - 40 families of nobles, 120 families of serfs, 800 families of free peasants). This means that for most of populace, parasitic aristocratic class - which was living off their serfs - was simply not something worth concerning with. And even serfs actually had significant personal rights and freedoms - the only limitation was that they could not sell land (it was not their) and they had to give portion of produce to overlords (tithe - 1/10 to noble, 1/10 to Church). For a long time, serfs actually could leave their land and switch to another noble if current one abused them, and they always could challenge their senior / overlord in a court of law.
> 
> Today we do have greater quality of life, but that is thanks to technological advancement. When it comes to political freedom etc., I do not see any improvement.


I wonder if political parties can be considered as modern feudal lords, for they can supervise each other, of course in theory only. Another thing can certain their surveillance are civic personal arms(The examples I'm going to provide are Swiss, Finland, USA, and Israel), and social media(which make contribution from corporation much more useless, yet just in theory as well). So let's summarizes feudal system, citizens(legalized arm)=knights, lords=political parties, peasants=nationalists or people without citizenship.


----------



## Aldarion (Aug 8, 2020)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> Hmmm...I wonder if the kings need someone for their surveillance. After all, it's certain kings might corrupt as well(Like Narmacil I).
> In addition, I wonder if JRRT might imply that it's useless against evil when it becomes the will of the majority(Tar-Palantir's failure of reform Numenor, looking much like good kings of the Israel southern kingdom, in particular Josiah). So could JRRT, under such thick Biblical culture, considers the will of majority is the key for good rule?I wonder.
> Of course it's another matter that if JRRT believes that "ruled by many"(polity) is much better cure, for we got no certain proof that JRRT provides any nation saved by the majority's will(Like French Revolution and 1911's Revolution of China) in his works.
> Unless we assume that maybe Dark Numenorains learned their lessons from their kinds perish with their fallen hometown and return from their evil deeds to Valar and join Gondor, or even if Rómendacil II is a prime minister elected by citizens like modern days, saving the whole Gondor from his corrupted king Narmacil I.



Medieval monarchs had God-given obligation to guard and guide their people - see Jesus' parable about the good shepherd. If monarch failed in this duty, rebellion against him could easily be justified. Now, when evil became will of majority, it is impossible to resist - but that would not make "democracy" a better choice.

Still, Tolkien clearly does not support absolutist monarchy - limits on monarch's power may be customary, but they still exist, and that can be seen all through Tolkien's works.



Hisoka Morrow said:


> I wonder if political parties can be considered as modern feudal lords, for they can supervise each other, of course in theory only. Another thing can certain their surveillance are civic personal arms(The examples I'm going to provide are Swiss, Finland, USA, and Israel), and social media(which make contribution from corporation much more useless, yet just in theory as well). So let's summarizes feudal system, citizens(legalized arm)=knights, lords=political parties, peasants=nationalists or people without citizenship.



Yes, that would work. They definitely are closer to factions within nobility, than to social strata.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 8, 2020)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> ... lords=political parties, ...





Aldarion said:


> ...
> Yes, that would work. They definitely are closer to factions within nobility, than to social strata.


There is some truth to this in practically all parliaments world-wide.
The elected representatives no longer (if they ever did) represent (sometimes not even remotely) a cross-section of the general population. They tend to be wealthier and better-educated than the average (mean) or even the median of the population. A trend I've read about was that in the Social Democratic Party in Germany, which was more of a worker's party up to perhaps some time in the 1970s. After that time, there was a large influx of academic intellectuals which was viewed positively by Chancellor from 1969 to 1974 and party chairman (much longer) Willy Brandt, but much more skeptically by his successor as Chancellor from 1974 to 1982, Helmut Schmidt. Those academics (whose knowledge of the "working class" was often highly theoretical, with almost no practical experience) were the main reason for the increasing unwillingness in the party to support some of Schmidt's measures of the late 1970s and early 1980, ultimately leading to the defection of Free Democratic Party (FDP, liberals in the broad sense turning into narrow-focus libertarians) to Helmut Kohl's Christian Democrats and a change in government.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 8, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> There is some truth to this in practically all parliaments world-wide.
> The elected representatives no longer (if they ever did) represent (sometimes not even remotely) a cross-section of the general population. They tend to be wealthier and better-educated than the average (mean) or even the median of the population. A trend I've read about was that in the Social Democratic Party in Germany, which was more of a worker's party up to perhaps some time in the 1970s. After that time, there was a large influx of academic intellectuals which was viewed positively by Chancellor from 1969 to 1974 and party chairman (much longer) Willy Brandt, but much more skeptically by his successor as Chancellor from 1974 to 1982, Helmut Schmidt. Those academics (whose knowledge of the "working class" was often highly theoretical, with almost no practical experience) were the main reason for the increasing unwillingness in the party to support some of Schmidt's measures of the late 1970s and early 1980, ultimately leading to the defection of Free Democratic Party (FDP, liberals in the broad sense turning into narrow-focus libertarians) to Helmut Kohl's Christian Democrats and a change in government.


Hmm...maybe these "academics" were the "only hope" for those "labor class" during that time?After all, mild left wing parties were seemingly premature during that period(About 1950-1980), so...well-experienced political human resources weren't sufficient possibly, well that be the main reason for Brandt's failure?I wonder.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 8, 2020)

No, definitely not. The Communist Parties in both Italy and France (and their affiliated labor unions) were a force to be reckoned with for much of this time, as was the UK's Labour Party, which was definitely more left-wing than Germany's Social Democrats. Germany's equivalent to the KPI and KPF, the KPD, was outlawed in 1956 (the openly Nazi SRP having been banned in 1952 as being and obvious successor to Hitler's NSDAP; these are the only two parties to have been outlawed in Germany). The successor party DKP never grew beyond splinter status. West Germany's "economic miracle" starting in the 1950s was in no small part due to the absence of crippling strikes that plagued, Italy, France and the UK. Besides a pragmatic approach to labor conflicts on the union side (and the SPD was very closely allied to the German unions), this also was helped by a pragmatic attitude on the employer's side (with the odd exception), as there was that "other" German state, the Soviet-occupied GDR.
The Socialdemocratic Party Germany (SPD) eliminated Marxist parts of their party program in a party congress in Godesberg in 1959, driven to no small amount by the pre-war KPD member (in exile in the SU under Stalin, a terrible time) Herbert Wehner. He was defamed (as was later Chancellor Willy Brandt) by the "Christian" Union parties practically all his life, but he gave as well as he got, ripping into the "C" Union speakers with a vengeance, especially the, while anti-Nazi, in his world view (officially stated) extremely reactionary and authoritarian leader for decades of the "C" Union "sect" ruling Bavaria in the state legislature almost from the word go, Franz-Josef Strauss. When not playing for "the media" (Strauss died in 1988) he could be surprisingly pragmatic - though the better bet is that he was unprincipled and definitely the most corrupt national politician we've ever had.


----------



## Aldarion (Aug 8, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> There is some truth to this in practically all parliaments world-wide.
> The elected representatives no longer (if they ever did) represent (sometimes not even remotely) a cross-section of the general population. They tend to be wealthier and better-educated than the average (mean) or even the median of the population. A trend I've read about was that in the Social Democratic Party in Germany, which was more of a worker's party up to perhaps some time in the 1970s. After that time, there was a large influx of academic intellectuals which was viewed positively by Chancellor from 1969 to 1974 and party chairman (much longer) Willy Brandt, but much more skeptically by his successor as Chancellor from 1974 to 1982, Helmut Schmidt. Those academics (whose knowledge of the "working class" was often highly theoretical, with almost no practical experience) were the main reason for the increasing unwillingness in the party to support some of Schmidt's measures of the late 1970s and early 1980, ultimately leading to the defection of Free Democratic Party (FDP, liberals in the broad sense turning into narrow-focus libertarians) to Helmut Kohl's Christian Democrats and a change in government.



One then has to consider merits of Athenian way of electing officials through lottery. Speaking of parliaments, I found this nice reading which touches Hungarian parliament in early 16th century:


https://www.academia.edu/2928098/Rethinking_Jagie%C5%82%C5%82o_Hungary_1490_1526_



It would be interesting to know if, during process of feudalization of Arnor, some sort of "parliament of nobility" appeared, or nobles just hid on their estates and did nothing... certainly Arnor appears to be more feudal, compared to Gondor's more Byzantine system.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 8, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> ...
> It would be interesting to know if, during process of feudalization of Arnor, some sort of "parliament of nobility" appeared, or nobles just hid on their estates and did nothing... certainly Arnor appears to be more feudal, compared to Gondor's more Byzantine system.


Phew, too much information missing about both the period before and that after the War of the Last Alliance - about both Arnor *and* Gondor. Starting with the percentage of Númenóreans to "indigenous" people (some of whom might also have had Númenórean ancestry) in both states, pre and post WotLA. It *was* Elendil's realm to start with, so that of the High King (for whatever reason). But Isildur left his nephew Meneldil to reign over Gondor after two years of regency in the year 2 of the Third Age, so Meneldil must have been several years older than Isildur's youngest son Valandil, who only became king of Arnor eight years later in the year 10 TA. Eight years of regency - by whom? Elrond? Someone else? - is something else that two by the accepted High King of both realms. Maybe the seed, or at least one of them, for the breakup of Arnor in 861 TA (still an awfully long time for any dynasty to remain in power in the real world).


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 9, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Phew, too much information missing about both the period before and that after the War of the Last Alliance - about both Arnor *and* Gondor. Starting with the percentage of Númenóreans to "indigenous" people (some of whom might also have had Númenórean ancestry) in both states, pre and post WotLA. It *was* Elendil's realm to start with, so that of the High King (for whatever reason). But Isildur left his nephew Meneldil to reign over Gondor after two years of regency in the year 2 of the Third Age, so Meneldil must have been several years older than Isildur's youngest son Valandil, who only became king of Arnor eight years later in the year 10 TA. Eight years of regency - by whom? Elrond? Someone else?


They must have some deputies if the nation's leader have any accident in case, maybe some prime ministers named Steward?Just like in now days that all high ministers should have a bunch of deputies, so it's impossible the whole cabinet of Isuildur were in his convey, annihilated in the Gladden field.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 9, 2020)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> They must have some deputies if the nation's leader have any accident in case, maybe some prime ministers named Steward?Just like in now days that all high ministers should have a bunch of deputies, so it's impossible the whole cabinet of Isuildur were in his convey, annihilated in the Gladden field.


It would seem sensible that such arrangements were made, but perhaps this War of the Last Alliance was seen as so monumental there were less of them. Elendil and Anárion both died in the war, Isildur and his three oldest sons on the way back to Arnor. Valandil had been left behind in Rivendell because he was too young, perhaps Meneldil in Minas Tirith, too, as Isildur did act as regent for two years. Stewards seem to have been a specialty of Gondor, though there is no mention from when. The Stewardship became hereditary with Húrin of Emyn Arnen during King Minardil's reign 1621-34 TA, and the Stewards became Ruling Stewards upon the death of the childless King Eärnur in 2050 TA.
One could speculate that the relative proximity of Rivendell (and the Grey Havens?) meant counsel was sought there. Or it could be simply loss of records. Arnor first split into three smaller kingdoms in 861 TA, the threat of Angmar started around 1300 TA, the royal lines in Cardolan and Rhudaur became extinct by 1349 TA (by which time Rhudaur had become ally or vassal of Angmar), Cardolan became depopulated by the Great Plague in 1636 TA, and finally Arthedain fell in 1974 TA. Some written records may have been saved at Rivendell (and of course there were Elves with long memories), but even Elrond would not have been aware of everything that went on during the Third Age in Eriador.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 10, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> It would seem sensible that such arrangements were made, but perhaps this War of the Last Alliance was seen as so monumental there were less of them. Elendil and Anárion both died in the war, Isildur and his three oldest sons on the way back to Arnor. Valandil had been left behind in Rivendell because he was too young, perhaps Meneldil in Minas Tirith, too, as Isildur did act as regent for two years. Stewards seem to have been a specialty of Gondor, though there is no mention from when. The Stewardship became hereditary with Húrin of Emyn Arnen during King Minardil's reign 1621-34 TA, and the Stewards became Ruling Stewards upon the death of the childless King Eärnur in 2050 TA.


Hmm....but it's impossible that even political ministers work as non-combat personnel joined the frontal combat and get dead, such as Ondoher didn't bring Pelendur.



Olorgando said:


> One could speculate that the relative proximity of Rivendell (and the Grey Havens?) meant counsel was sought there. Or it could be simply loss of records. Arnor first split into three smaller kingdoms in 861 TA, the threat of Angmar started around 1300 TA, the royal lines in Cardolan and Rhudaur became extinct by 1349 TA (by which time Rhudaur had become ally or vassal of Angmar), Cardolan became depopulated by the Great Plague in 1636 TA, and finally Arthedain fell in 1974 TA. Some written records may have been saved at Rivendell (and of course there were Elves with long memories), but even Elrond would not have been aware of everything that went on during the Third Age in Eriador.


Hmm...but I wonder if Noldor Elvish states got such sufficient human resources, after all, their casualties must be not fewer than their human allies. In addition, I wonder if these Noldor states have some effective birth rate policy or not XD


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 10, 2020)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> Hmm...but I wonder if Noldor Elvish states got such sufficient human resources, after all, their casualties must be not fewer than their human allies. In addition, I wonder if these Noldor states have some effective birth rate policy or not XD


JRRT is never overly clear on this matter. On the other hand, even the Númenóreans, with their life-span of several hundred years, take their time with getting married and having kids - getting married at maybe 100? And in Gondor, more than once a king died leaving no children - or at least no sons, reversing a policy of Númenor.
Two of the High Elves mentioned, Fëanor (with his seven sons) and Finarfin (four boys and their kid sister Galadriel) have large families. But all of these seem to have been born in Aman during the three Valian ages of Melkor's captivity (each about 10,000 sun years long), so that's a looooong time. On the other hand Elrond doesn't have kids (as per the Tale of Years for the Third Age in Appendix B) until the twins Elladan and Elrohir are born in 130 TA, when Elrond is 58 + 3441 + 130 = 3,629 years old (and Arwen is born 111 (!!!) years after he brothers). I don't think birth *control* was much of an issue with the Elves (and the Númenóreans and Dúnedain).


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 10, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> JRRT is never overly clear on this matter. On the other hand, even the Númenóreans, with their life-span of several hundred years, take their time with getting married and having kids - getting married at maybe 100? And in Gondor, more than once a king died leaving no children - or at least no sons, reversing a policy of Númenor.
> Two of the High Elves mentioned, Fëanor (with his seven sons) and Finarfin (four boys and their kid sister Galadriel) have large families. But all of these seem to have been born in Aman during the three Valian ages of Melkor's captivity (each about 10,000 sun years long), so that's a looooong time. On the other hand Elrond doesn't have kids (as per the Tale of Years for the Third Age in Appendix B) until the twins Elladan and Elrohir are born in 130 TA, when Elrond is 58 + 3441 + 130 = 3,629 years old (and Arwen is born 111 (!!!) years after he brothers). I don't think birth *control* was much of an issue with the Elves (and the Númenóreans and Dúnedain).


OK...so maybe we can assume that Noldor officers were very much more resourceful than those normal human, able taking charges of their offices between Arnor and their mother countries...
Yeah, it's obvious that Arnor had much fewer human resources than Gondor, in particular those Numenorains since it's foundation, so this means Arnor doesn't take too many human resources to maintain it's government's mechanic. 
By the way, Gondor's economic truly afford much more population than Arnor, so even if ME natives weren't as competent as Numenorains, they can use quantity advantage to amend their quality's weakness, this means Gondor had much more bunches of reserved human resources XDD







Aldarion said:


> One then has to consider merits of Athenian way of electing officials through lottery. Speaking of parliaments, I found this nice reading which touches Hungarian parliament in early 16th century:
> 
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/2928098/Rethinking_Jagie%C5%82%C5%82o_Hungary_1490_1526_
> ...


Or maybe we can conclude their process in one key point just as Eastern Roman Vs Western Roman-economic, forcing Arnor like the Western Empire, much more unable to maintain any powerful government. What do you think?


----------



## Aldarion (Aug 10, 2020)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> Or maybe we can conclude their process in one key point just as Eastern Roman Vs Western Roman-economic, forcing Arnor like the Western Empire, much more unable to maintain any powerful government. What do you think?



But that is exactly what I'm talking about: West feudalized because it was unable to maintain powerful government. You can see this in Arnor falling apart into three kingdoms, and also Shire gaining independence.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 10, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> But that is exactly what I'm talking about: West feudalized because it was unable to maintain powerful government. You can see this in Arnor falling apart into three kingdoms, and also Shire gaining independence.


Oooppss, I had better go back to your ex-posts and watch much more in details


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 10, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> But that is exactly what I'm talking about: West feudalized because it was unable to maintain powerful government. You can see this in Arnor falling apart into three kingdoms, and also Shire gaining independence.


In the end, though, western Europe's "feudalization" producing the precursors of national states turned JRRT's "Arnor vs. Gondor" equation on its head. Byzantium ended up falling to the Ottoman Turks, while the western European "Arthedains" ended up crushing at least this "Easterling" power.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 10, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> One then has to consider merits of Athenian way of electing officials through lottery.


Hmm...I'm pretty sure German's election isn't as random as Athen's. Like most elections in modern days, candidates are impossible to be elected without any requirements before the lottery start, usually.(Most political parties won't give the priority to politic rookies as well during their domestic election).
After all, humans aren't that stupid to elect someone obviously incompetent as their leaders(ex: most USA presidents have experience as local or even grassroots ministers), at least in normal situation.(It's another matter in extreme situations, see the answer below)
Athens election system seem stupid yet partially trustworthy(Citizens's educational and practicability standard might not be too idealistic or incompetent, for the voters were candidates themselves). Of course it's another matter when the citizens have to rule the territory much larger than their capability. (That's why Athens or Rome were unable to utterly hold all kinds of social crisis after their expansion, after all, much of the best policies to cease these civil strife will boycott their personal gain for sure, such as expansion of citizenship)





Olorgando said:


> There is some truth to this in practically all parliaments world-wide.
> The elected representatives no longer (if they ever did) represent (sometimes not even remotely) a cross-section of the general population. They tend to be wealthier and better-educated than the average (mean) or even the median of the population. A trend I've read about was that in the Social Democratic Party in Germany, which was more of a worker's party up to perhaps some time in the 1970s. After that time, there was a large influx of academic intellectuals which was viewed positively by Chancellor from 1969 to 1974 and party chairman (much longer) Willy Brandt, but much more skeptically by his successor as Chancellor from 1974 to 1982, Helmut Schmidt. Those academics (whose knowledge of the "working class" was often highly theoretical, with almost no practical experience) were the main reason for the increasing unwillingness in the party to support some of Schmidt's measures of the late 1970s and early 1980, ultimately leading to the defection of Free Democratic Party (FDP, liberals in the broad sense turning into narrow-focus libertarians) to Helmut Kohl's Christian Democrats and a change in government.


Or maybe the cabinets before those "academics" were too disappointing, making the voters make a desperate gamble to vote for these academics, will this be possible?
Whether Athens(Some deadly mistakes in Penulusia War or Themistocles's scourge to fight Persia), Carthage(The citizens mass movement to fight Rome to the death in the last Punic War?.), Romans(2nd Punic War, the voters dissatisfaction about Fabius strategy led to the Cannae's disaster), Holland's *Rampjaar(Lead to John De Witt's death yet Holland's victory against UK and France),* it's human nature to make extreme decision when facing extreme situation. Whether the results are good or bad, mass movement are always unpreventable. I wonder if that's why Aldarion supports Idealist Monarchs, able to let the majority not to loose their heads when going under extreme situation yet still having the power from the mass to overcome it.
I'm not sure it's the Energy Crisis that made the German mass vote these "premature academics".


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 10, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> In the end, though, western Europe's "feudalization" producing the precursors of national states turned JRRT's "Arnor vs. Gondor" equation on its head. Byzantium ended up falling to the Ottoman Turks, while the western European "Arthedains" ended up crushing at least this "Easterling" power.


Hmm...strictly speaking, western EU's feudal states were "Roman vassals", that's why so many nations have "Rome" in their names(EX:Holy Roman Empire) till maybe after the 4th Crusade (biting Eastern Romans ass, leading to it's decisive decline), or maybe 100 years war(Making they France build "their own nation", meaning they consider themselves no longer Romans), and just like the ME native human were once Numenor and their Exile's states vassals, turning themselves into independent states(Like Rohan).
The whole Middle Age might be considered as a progress that each Germanic tribes's independence from Rome and building their own nations, like ME people turning themselves from the vassals of Numenor into their own independent states.(Though the Reunited Kingdom seem much more powerful, yet it's faculty seem like a melting pot of all kinds of nations instead of legacy of Numenor like Gondor or Arnor)
Arthedain's feudalization happened after it's fall, just like the Western Empire. In addition, "wildly defined Eastern Rome" maybe sill exists as "Russia", yet not as powerful as before. Most of all, hobbits, Rohan and other states seem to be growing in power greatly, maybe enough to replace men's hegemony, won't it?
So perhaps,Numenor=Rome, Arnor=Western Empire, Gondor=Eastern Empire, Hobbits and other human factions=modern western EU's states?


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 10, 2020)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> I'm not sure it's the Energy Crisis that made the German mass vote these "premature academics".


It had very little to do with voting for any academics or not in any elections at first. It had to do with the (perhaps extreme) change in party membership. The background were the 1968 student rebellions which started in the US as a protest against the Vietnam War that year. They spread to France, almost leading to the fall of long-term president Charles de Gaulle, and then to Germany, less severe. But those "68ers" were the source of those academics who shifted the Social Democratic party *membership* to a very theoretical "leftism" with a serious lack of "reality check" (which included the blindness to the fact that the East Bloc's nominal "leftism", even the post-Stalinist one, had in reality become an authoritarian, and thus reactionary, system of keeping the "elite" there in power). Both Energy Crises were during the chancellorship of Social Democrat Helmut Schmidt, who was a quite competent economist (in massive contrast to his successor Helmut Kohl). The become-all-to-theoretical-academic membership refused to take notice that this was a first hard reality check about globalization, that Germany was not able to simply effect economic measures ignoring external effects (in this case oil embargos). The refusal of this academic bunch to take note of such facts of life, pre- and post-unification, was the main reason that Helmut Kohl, who besides his flash of brilliance in the run-up to unification was a seriously mediocre politician (except in keeping control of his party) pre- and post-unification, managed to stay in power for over 15 years.


----------



## Aldarion (Aug 11, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> In the end, though, western Europe's "feudalization" producing the precursors of national states turned JRRT's "Arnor vs. Gondor" equation on its head. Byzantium ended up falling to the Ottoman Turks, while the western European "Arthedains" ended up crushing at least this "Easterling" power.



Not exactly true - they only managed to stop Ottomans after they themselves became far more Byzantine than feudal: it was development of modern, centralized state with its attendant standing military that allowed victories which brought an end to Ottoman expansion (Sisak 1593., Vienna 1683.). Earlier, feudal armies and states got utterly crushed by Ottomans, and while there were successes as well, they were achieved by experienced commanders leading highly professional mercenary armies (John Hunyadi, Matthias Corvinus).

Byzantine Empire meanwhile managed to defend itself for centuries against an enemy that was its match in terms of political and military organization, and far stronger in terms of resources. Its ability to defend came about at the same time as dissolution of thematic system, civil wars and, later, feudalization of the society. Byzantine Empire that got conquered by Seljuks in 1071. - 1096. was far cry from the Empire that survived Arab invasions of 7th and 8th centuries. But even then it survived and managed to recover; Empire might have recovered and survived to modern day if it weren't for Crusader conquest of Constantinople (which, combined with feudalization of the Empire, led to the Empire splitting into three) and later a series of plagues, particularly the Black Death in 14th century.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 11, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> Not exactly true ...


Not exactly, certainly, but by tendency, and on shorter time scales than those of the Third Age.
A case in point for an "Arnor vs. Gondor" equivalent popped into my mind yesterday.
Charlemagne being crowned Emperor in the year 800 by pope Leo III, causing some raised eyebrows (to understate) in Byzantium or Constantinople. It was among other things a further attempt by that pope to further the bishops' of Rome's attempts to escape the overlordship of the true "Pontifex Maximus", since Constantine the Eastern Roman Emperor.
It only took two generations, to the grandsons of Charlemagne, for his empire to break into three, not 861 years like Arnor.
Interestingly, Charles ΙΙ also known as the Bald, by far the youngest of Charlemagne's ("legitimate") grandsons, by his son's Louis the Pious' *second* wife, became ruler of West Francia, the future France and the first part of the Empire to become a power in its own right. Louis II, also known as the German, was the third son of LtP by his first wife, became ruler of Eastern Francia, which took a lot longer to become unified Germany. Ironically, LtP's *oldest* son Lothair became ruler of Middle Francia, which over time was reduced to being a part of either the western or the eastern segments of Charlemagne's empire, known as Lorraine in French respectively (a bit more recognizable) Lothringen in German (earlier called Lotharingen).
In a certain way in actual history "Near (western) Harad" was being reconquered, this taking almost 700 years since Charlemagne's coronation as emperor. But it's hard to fit the (future?) Austro-Hungarian empire into a M-e frame, who were at the front dealing with the "Easterlings". Equating Byzantium=Gondor breaks down in 1453 - unless one equates (weakly) Constantinople with Osgiliath, and Austria-Hungary (Vienna) with Minas Tirith. Too much allegory?


----------



## Aldarion (Aug 11, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Not exactly, certainly, but by tendency, and on shorter time scales than those of the Third Age.
> A case in point for an "Arnor vs. Gondor" equivalent popped into my mind yesterday.
> Charlemagne being crowned Emperor in the year 800 by pope Leo III, causing some raised eyebrows (to understate) in Byzantium or Constantinople. It was among other things a further attempt by that pope to further the bishops' of Rome's attempts to escape the overlordship of the true "Pontifex Maximus", since Constantine the Eastern Roman Emperor.
> It only took two generations, to the grandsons of Charlemagne, for his empire to break into three, not 861 years like Arnor.
> Interestingly, Charles ΙΙ also known as the Bald, by far the youngest of Charlemagne's ("legitimate") grandsons, by his son's Louis the Pious' *second* wife, became ruler of West Francia, the future France and the first part of the Empire to become a power in its own right. Louis II, also known as the German, was the third son of LtP by his first wife, became ruler of Eastern Francia, which took a lot longer to become unified Germany. Ironically, LtP's *oldest* son Lothair became ruler of Middle Francia, which over time was reduced to being a part of either the western or the eastern segments of Charlemagne's empire, known as Lorraine in French respectively (a bit more recognizable) Lothringen in German (earlier called Lotharingen).



I never said Tolkien copy-pasted history, but parallels are there.



> In a certain way in actual history "Near (western) Harad" was being reconquered, this taking almost 700 years since Charlemagne's coronation as emperor. But it's hard to fit the (future?) Austro-Hungarian empire into a M-e frame, who were at the front dealing with the "Easterlings". Equating Byzantium=Gondor breaks down in 1453 - unless one equates (weakly) Constantinople with Osgiliath, and Austria-Hungary (Vienna) with Minas Tirith. Too much allegory?



Tolkien definitely mixed-and-matched elements. So Gondor is a combination of Holy Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire. Anyway:
*Minas Ithil - Constantinople*. Both cities are associated with moon - star and crescent were symbol of city of Byzantium, while symbol of Minas Ithil is moon. Symbols were changed by the conquerors - Orcs changed moon into one with ugly face, while Ottomans shifted crescent and star to point right (originally they pointed upwards). Both cities served as defense against attackers from the east, but both were eventually captured by those same attackers after a long siege. Both cities were also renamed (Minas Morgul - Istanbul).

*Minas Tirith - Vienna.* Minas Tirith is often called the "White City", just like Vienna. In fact, name "Vienna" comes from "Vindobona", which is a Celtic name meaning "white settlement". Vienna originally had circular walls, while Minas Tirith itself is circular. Both cities had system of beacons used to summon reinforcements, and both were the site of - and partly saved by - the greatest cavalry charge in history. Polish cavalry fought alongside Habsburg troops, just as Minas Tirith was saved by a combined effort of Rohirrim and Gondor's provincial armies. Polish charge came just as Kara Mustafa had broken walls in several places and was preparing to enter the city, just as Minas Tirith was saved as Witch King had broken the gates and was preparing to enter the city. Mustafa and the Witch King were both defeated by a woman (Holy Virgin Mary - Eowyn).

*Osgilliath - Budapest*. Both cities were seats of their empires (Kingdom of Hungary and Gondor), but both were eventually conquered by their enemies, with only western areas of kingdoms surviving, and seat itself moving westwards (Vienna / Minas Tirith). Both cities were situated on waterways, and played a key strategic role (in this, Osgilliath also parallels Belgrade). Osgiliath was abandoned and used as a fortress by both Gondor and Mordor, which is precisely what happened to Budapest after conquest.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 11, 2020)

I don't know where JRRT would place this on the allegory - applicability continuum ... 🤔


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 11, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> I don't know where JRRT would place this on the allegory - applicability continuum ... 🤔


Not total allegory, yet the elements that take a horribly heavy role in JRRT's works must be the stuff are very clear. What's more important is the "vague concept" combined of all kinds of reflections. Such as the concept between "Rome" and "Numenor". The content of JRRT's work were combined of all kinds of of such reflection, though they infect JRRT respectively, as too many of JRRT's work were inspired from these real-world sources, making JRRT's works seem like allegory, in particular after readers like us combining them together. So JRRT's works are just very similar with allegory and we're just guessing it's source of inspiration.



Olorgando said:


> In a certain way in actual history "Near (western) Harad" was being reconquered, this taking almost 700 years since Charlemagne's coronation as emperor. But it's hard to fit the (future?) Austro-Hungarian empire into a M-e frame, who were at the front dealing with the "Easterlings". Equating Byzantium=Gondor breaks down in 1453 - unless one equates (weakly) Constantinople with Osgiliath, and Austria-Hungary (Vienna) with Minas Tirith. Too much allegory?


Gondor and Arnor both seem to consider themselves as legacies and Exile from Numenor, just like those who claim their regimes's rightfulness based on "Rome" instead of "their own independent states"(As a citizen lived in a nation arguing about it's named as ROC or Taiwan, I can a bit understand it XDDD), no matter they're early western EU's states Middle-Age, Eastern Rome, or even maybe Tsar's Russia . 
So no matter it's Gondor or Arnor, just consider them as some "Exile regimes of Numenor" instead of "independent nations"(Like France, UK, etc), just like both Holy Rome and Eastern Rome were "Rome Exile regimes" instead of "independent nations"(Like Rohan, etc), then I think you'll find out that they're just heavy sources of JRRT's inspiration instead of simple allegory. After all, bunches of Biblical elements also make their appearance, yet we won't say JRRT's works are allegory like The Pilgrim's Progress. I think we can thus clarify JRRT's wokrs aren't allegory


----------



## Aldarion (Nov 19, 2020)

From here:








What's your favourite poem?


LotR, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, etc, have many amazing poems! What's your favourite poem? My favourite LotR poem is this one: There is an inn, a merry old inn Beneath an old grey hill And there they brew a beer so brown that the Man in the Moon himself came down One night to drink his...




www.thetolkienforum.com




So as to avoid derail. I hope I am not derailing _this_ thread, but it seemed appropriate.



Ealdwyn said:


> That's an interesting viewpoint, because tradition is necessarily backward looking, and would seem to be the complete opposite of hope.
> 
> I'm not sure Tolkien's vision of tradition in that poem is a particualrly good thing, because what he endorses in LotR - and rather romantically - is an autocratic hierarchy. Outside a work of fiction, I'm not convinced that a tradition of giving absolute power to one person on the sole basis of their birth is something that I'd consider morally supportable.



Tradition is backward looking, but that does _not_ mean that it is opposite of hope. In fact, it is the _foundation_ of hope. Trying to build / rebuild the society without tradition / while rejecting tradition is like trying to build a house without foundations... it might look pretty at the outside, but the moment something happens, it will collapse. So while you cannot rely on tradition _alone_, you have to respect it, and base yourself on tradition, otherwise you will not be able to make anything worthwile or long-lasting.

Also, monarchy =/= autocratic hierarchy. And I wouldn't even say that autocratic hierarchy is necessarily bad, nor do I see big advantage to being ruled by a bunch of "elected" pathological liars. I wrote elsewhere on the need of subsidiarity, but essentially, looking at democracy as a goal is wrong. What is needed is not democracy as such, but freedom. And _that_ means *subsidiarity* and *decentralization*. Which can be achieved just as easily - and maybe even more easily - in monarchy as in democracy.

If you look at Tolkien's "good guys" societies, all of them embody this principle, although to various extents. Gondor is by far the most centralized of those, but even there provinces have significant freedom (it is essentially Byzantine thematic system). Rohirrim have even more freedom than Gondorians, and Shire is, well, Shire (until Sharkey comes to pay the visit). By contrast, Mordor is highly centralized, bureocratized and depersonalized state - you will notice that orcs, in addition to names, also have _serial numbers_.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 19, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> From here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Autocratic rule, due to the unaccountability of the autocrats, leads to rampant corruption with a near inevitability that is close to being a law of (human) nature. Oligarchy or Plutocracy seems to be the name for such corruption-riddled aristocracies. The original, classical Greek meaning of this last term seems to closer to what we would call a meritocracy. Tendencies in democracies (some of which can only be titled as such by enclosing them in " ") in the same corrupt direction are due to the autocrats lurking in the background (whenever they don't manage to actually get elected), plutocrats mainly, to whom too many politicians are beholden. Since they (the beholden politicos) have *no* chance to get elected if they were to openly state that they are basically looking out for the interests of a tiny corrupt-to-criminal minority, they have to lie. Almost more important is preventing the population from hearing the truth. From Hitler and Stalin over the former Soviet Block and mainland China to whatever other current openly autocratic regimes that existed or exist, controlling what information their population gets was always of utmost importance. Where the autocracy is more covert, it's more difficult, but anything but impossible, as the last few decades have shown. And the Internet cuts both ways in this way. Touted as a great advance for freedom of information, for which it definitely has the potential, it can on the other hand be rigidly controlled as in mainland China and perhaps lesser degrees elsewhere, but just as easily be misused for massive disinformation campaigns, aka baldfaced lies.

As to the point of subsidiarity: no question that issues should be dealt with at the lowest administrative level possible, as the people are closest to the issues in question there. There are reasons why this sometimes does not function well, they seem often to of the financial sort. But sometimes those responsible at the nominally appropriate level are simply incompetent, or worse - autocracies come in all shapes and sizes. As to this subsidiarity being achieved in monarchies, that also sounds to me to represent a hypothetical ideal, I'd like to know where it had been effected in larger political units and over longer period of time. What subsidiarity probably did exist probably often derived from the inability of the central government for effective control, by default, not intention. Sometimes also by those central governments not wanting to be bothered with it, which could easily lead to lower-level autocracies (absentee landlordism combined with concentration of landownership in few hands, and delegation of responsibility to local administrators are a classical case, in this case also from the private sector). Subsidiarity by default due to inability to exercise effective direct control is not quite the same as a conscious decision by any one government. That, too, is being changed by the Internet. Again, Mainland China seems to have gone furthest down this road. Subsidiarity as long it is not perceived as threatening by Beijing, but gone in a flash if it is.

I freely confess that I view Amazon, Facebook, Google and the lot with hardly less suspicion than I would the centralized Chinese equivalents (and as far as the NSA is concerned, the difference is a flat zero).


----------



## Aldarion (Nov 20, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Autocratic rule, due to the unaccountability of the autocrats, leads to rampant corruption with a near inevitability that is close to being a law of (human) nature. Oligarchy or Plutocracy seems to be the name for such corruption-riddled aristocracies. The original, classical Greek meaning of this last term seems to closer to what we would call a meritocracy. Tendencies in democracies (some of which can only be titled as such by enclosing them in " ") in the same corrupt direction are due to the autocrats lurking in the background (whenever thy don't manage to actually get elected), plutocrats mainly, to whom too many politicians are beholden. Since they have no chance to get elected if they were to openly state that they are basically looking out for the interests of a tine corrupt-to-criminal minority, they have to lie. Almost more important is preventing the population from hearing the truth. From Hitler and Stalin over the former Soviet Block and mainland China to whatever other current openly autocratic regimes that existed or exist, controlling what information their population gets was always of utmost importance. Where the autocracy is more covert, it's more difficult, but anything but impossible, as the last few decades have shown. And the Internet cuts both ways in this way. Touted as a great advance for freedom of information, for which it definitely has the potential, it can on the other hand be rigidly controlled as in mainland China and perhaps lesser degrees elsewhere, but just as easily be misused for massive disinformation campaigns, aka baldfaced lies.
> 
> As to the point of subsidiarity: no question that issues should be dealt with at the lowest administrative level possible, as the people are closest to the issues in question there. There are reasons why this sometimes does not function well, they seem often to of the financial sort. But sometimes those responsible at the nominally appropriate level are simply incompetent, or worse - autocracies come in all shapes and sizes. As to this subsidiarity being achieved in monarchies, that also sounds to me to represent a hypothetical ideal, I'd like to know where it had been effected in larger political units and over longer period of time. What subsidiarity probably did exist probably often derived from the inability of the central government for effective control, by default, not intention. Sometimes also by those central governments not wanting to be bothered with it, which could easily lead to lower-level autocracies (absentee landlordism combined with concentration of landownership in few hands, and delegation of responsibility to local administrators are a classical case, in this case also from the private sector). Subsidiarity by default due to inability to exercise effective direct control is not quite the same as a conscious decision by any one government. That, too, is being changed by the Internet. Again, Mainland China seems to have gone furthest down this road. Subsidiarity as long it is not perceived as threatening by Beijing, but gone in a flash if it is.
> 
> I freely confess that I view Amazon, Facebook, Google and the lot with hardly less suspicion than I would the centralized Chinese equivalents (and as far as the NSA is concerned, the difference is a flat zero).



Autocrats are not necessarily unaccountable. Or rather, I would call "losing elections" to be a poor sort of accountability - the only time politicians suffer true consequences in a democracy is when they are incompetent at thieving and lying, and thus, by default, less dangerous than the sort who gets off scot-free. By contrast, Byzantine Empire was an autocratic state, but the Emperor was not held to be a divine figure. Result of this was that the Emperor was fully accountable, to populace of both the capital city and the provinces - as both were liable (and able) to raise armed rebellion when necessary.

As for tendency in democracy towards autocracy, that is not (only) due to "autocrats lurking in the background". It is due to the features of the system itself:

Fact that politicians have to get elected means that they need financial support from somewhere. And this support comes at cost
Fact that there are so many politicians means that there is little personal accountability, as their actions and results get lost in the crowd
Fact that politicians' terms are limited means that they only look towards getting reelected
Fact that they ostensibly have to get elected means that they have to try and control information
Of course, these are features of any autocratic regime, but elections do provide an additional incentive.

As for subsidiarity, if people at low level are incompetent, those higher up will hardly be any less so. What differs is that more responsibility there is at higher levels, greater the damage caused by incompetence and outright malice alike. And yes, it often derived from inability: Roman Republic and Empire were filled with cities which each controlled significant area and were important centres of commerce, and thus could maintain political power. Byzantine Empire of middle period depended on themes for defense, and so had no choice but to decentralize, and Holy Roman Empire likewise was highly decentralized due to power of cities.

And yes, decentralization should ideally be present in all aspects of life, not just politics.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Nov 20, 2020)

In general, I think Aldarion's point is that there always should be the deadly potential threat from the people to overthrow corrupted rulers at any time.
Just like in USA, Swiss, Finland and so forth, citizens have the right to bear arms, right?^^


----------



## Ealdwyn (Nov 20, 2020)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> In general, I think Aldarion's point is that there always should be the deadly potential threat from the people to overthrow corrupted rulers at any time.
> Just like in USA, Swiss, Finland and so forth, citizens have the right to bear arms, right?^^


I think it's only the US that has a constitutional right to bear arms. Most other nations prefer democracy to the potential threat of violence.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 20, 2020)

I'll quote Winston Churchill (without looking up the quote) who is reputed to have said:

Democracy is the worst form of government - with the exception of *every other* form that has *ever* been tried.

Imperfect as are all things humans do (that scientific term for our species "homo *sapiens*" remains for me one of the worst jokes of science, but even science's *worst* jokes are child's play compared to those of the anti-science crowd - not that there are many of those, there is no more less humorless bunch than these in any country anywhere and at any time in history), at least in a somewhat functioning democracy you can throw the bums out after a defined period. With a lunatic concept like the (European) "divine right of kings", that doesn't work - unless you do a French Revolution (which made an Eonwë-admonishing-Sauron-at-the-end-of-the-First-Age mistake of not guillotining *enough* of the parasite class, and turned on itself, leading to some guy from Corsica). Kung-fu Tse apparently (correct me if I've gotten this wrong) postulated that an Emperor (the last of a dynasty when it happened) could "lose the mandate of heaven", or words to that effect. Um, yes, but where's the referee to judge this loss? Every dynasty change in China was what the Chinese call "interesting times", a euphemism for very, very bad. And what passes for "modern Confucianism" among ruling classes paying lip service to it tends to stress the duty of the subservient side, and ignore that the higher-up also had the responsibility to care for those subservient to him. Selectively partial Confucianism.

Hereditary monarchy does not take into account the possibility (in the private sector this is mirrored in some companies where the - possibly founding - patriarch is tearing his hair when contemplating possible family successors) that the very next generation may, to put it bluntly, stink. But you're *stuck* with this bum if he comes to his throne at an early age and proves to be long-lived, for in the worst case an agonizingly long time (true, Caligula and Nero in the succession of Octavian Augustus got offed - but far too late in each case). And elections *can* be a form of quality control if the bums do get thrown out (like Herbert Hoover, a pathetically incompetent non-manager of the 1929 Wall Street Black Friday (?) finally got kicked out by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1932 election in the US).

As to financial support for elections, there are varied approaches. In my opinion keeping the parasitic criminal class at bay is the most urgent issue facing any country (the way this class ever accumulated this wealth is all too often a history of ancestors making "strategic investments" in crucial elections - not to put too fine a point on it, rampant corruption in the past). Currently, *every* country in the world fails miserably at it. It's not so much an issue of *elections* - it's access to the lawmaking process. To make my point sufficiently clear, Al Capone, Pablo Escobar and the like having a say in the laws that deal with organized crime. Whose most dangerous organization by orders of magnitude today in the world is Wall Street and allies.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Nov 20, 2020)

Ealdwyn said:


> Most other nations prefer democracy to the potential threat of violence.


Hmmm...=''=...I wonder if the rights to bear arms is one of the most effective way to maintain democracy?🧐After all, if the threat from the people is to much to the ruler class, they had better be democratic more.


Aldarion said:


> Tradition is backward looking, but that does _not_ mean that it is opposite of hope. In fact, it is the _foundation_ of hope. Trying to build / rebuild the society without tradition / while rejecting tradition is like trying to build a house without foundations... it might look pretty at the outside, but the moment something happens, it will collapse. So while you cannot rely on tradition _alone_, you have to respect it, and base yourself on tradition, otherwise you will not be able to make anything worthwile or long-lasting.


In addition, maybe the function of a monarch is spiritual, much more than factual use. They bring spiritual influence far more than factual enforced power. For instance, France during Napoleon's rule, Meiji's Japan, UK's monarchs and even God to USA.


----------



## 1stvermont (Nov 20, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> And yes, decentralization should ideally be present in all aspects of life, not just politics.



Amen.

Boy, I would love to jump in this discussion, but I tend to get in trouble when I talk politics. So for now, I watch and read.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 21, 2020)

1stvermont said:


> Aldarion said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, decentralization should ideally be present in all aspects of life, not just politics.
> ...


Present, yes. Where possible, yes. We clearly disagree on the level, I'll leave it that.

But one situation where decentralization has bombed *disastrously* is the COVID-pandemic. And that world-wide, as shown by the skyrocketing infection cases and the ever-more horrific death toll.

Just to put this into perspective for the US: total military deaths from all causes in world War II, second only to the Civil War for the death toll, were a bit over 400,000 ...


----------



## Aldarion (Nov 21, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Present, yes. Where possible, yes. We clearly disagree on the level, I'll leave it that.
> 
> But one situation where decentralization has bombed *disastrously* is the COVID-pandemic. And that world-wide, as shown by the skyrocketing infection cases and the ever-more horrific death toll.
> 
> Just to put this into perspective for the US: total military deaths from all causes in world War II, second only to the Civil War for the death toll, were a bit over 400,000 ...



Best way to prevent COVID pandemic - _any _pandemic - would be to reduce travel to minimum. This means minimum of globalization, economic autarky, closed borders and so on. It is globalization and globalism which made pandemic as bad as it is. Everything done now is just applying a torn-up bandaid to a gaping wound.



Hisoka Morrow said:


> In general, I think Aldarion's point is that there always should be the deadly potential threat from the people to overthrow corrupted rulers at any time.
> Just like in USA, Swiss, Finland and so forth, citizens have the right to bear arms, right?^^



Part of my point, yes, but hardly the entirety of it.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 21, 2020)

Autarky is a total illusion by now. And travel is no longer the main issue as it was at the earlier stages of the pandemic. Now it's mainly human stupidity and narcissism.


----------



## Aldarion (Nov 21, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Autarky is a total illusion by now. And travel is no longer the main issue as it was at the earlier stages of the pandemic. Now it's mainly human stupidity and narcissism.



No longer, yes, but the point is, travel restrictions _in early stages of the epidemic _would have prevented or at delayed its transition from epidemic to pandemic. But modern crop of globalist politicians prefer idea of squashing individual liberties to idea of rejecting or even easing up on globalism, free trade and so on. As a result, by the time that travel restrictions were introduced, it was already too late for them to be effective.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 21, 2020)

The US tried and failed miserably. Where it seems to have worked somewhat is in Australia and New Zealand. But they didn't just restrict international travel. Many of the measures (I've mainly read - sporadically - about those in Australia) would have a sizable number of the US population frothing at the mouth as if they had rabies. And just forget "globalist politicians"! The absolutely "peerless" drivers of globalization were and are multinational corporations, who seem to feed on a vast fund of bottomless greed and all the criminal energy that releases. With the aid of all-too-often very shady lobbyism (to put it *very* nicely) they have managed to "convince" loads of politicians to their point of view. And if you think I'm implying corruption, I damn well am. Driven by the corruptors.


----------



## Aldarion (Nov 21, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> The US tried and failed miserably. Where it seems to have worked somewhat is in Australia and New Zealand. But they didn't just restrict international travel. Many of the measures (I've mainly read - sporadically - about those in Australia) would have a sizable number of the US population frothing at the mouth as if they had rabies. And just forget "globalist politicians"! The absolutely "peerless" drivers of globalization were and are multinational corporations, who seem to feed on a vast fund of bottomless greed and all the criminal energy that releases. With the aid of all-too-often very shady lobbyism (to put it *very* nicely) they have managed to "convince" loads of politicians to their point of view. And if you think I'm implying corruption, I damn well am. Driven by the corruptors.



Oh, I am well aware of who is behind globalization. Still, they do need politicians to rubber-stamp things... or at least, I hope they do.


----------



## 1stvermont (Nov 21, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Present, yes. Where possible, yes. We clearly disagree on the level, I'll leave it that.
> 
> But one situation where decentralization has bombed *disastrously* is the COVID-pandemic. And that world-wide, as shown by the skyrocketing infection cases and the ever-more horrific death toll.
> 
> Just to put this into perspective for the US: total military deaths from all causes in world War II, second only to the Civil War for the death toll, were a bit over 400,000 ...



A great example of where we disagree on decentralization, covid. Once more I_ at this tim_e will not get into modern politics I will only say centralization has caused more deaths than anything known to man and decentralization did not kill those who died from covid. But like Aragorn, my time is coming.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Nov 21, 2020)

Perhaps it would be best to try to restrict the discussion to the thread subject -- _Tolkien's _political views -- rather than our own. 

There was a time -- long before mine here -- when political and religious argument threatened to "derail" TTF. An attempt to isolate them, by creating separate forums, failed too, and since then, discussion of those subjects, _other than related directly to Tolkien, _have been off limits. Speaking personally, I think that policy has worked fairly well.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 21, 2020)

JRRT lived through that horrendous 1918-1920 "Spanish flu" pandemic. Minimum worldwide death toll 17 million, or about one percent of the world population at the time (which would equate to about 80 million today). Some "guesstimates" range as high as 50 or even 100 million.
Unfortunately, as Humphrey Carpenter notes in the introduction to "Letters", "Between 1918 and 1937 few letters survive" (especially any touching on JRRT's work on the Sil and TH, which were the main focus of Carpenter's book).

So we unfortunately don't know this, in "secular political terms", libertarian's (in a letter a self-professed "anarchist", with the caveat of *not* meaning "whiskered men throwing bombs") views on measures taken against the pandemic at the time. For that matter, I have no idea how effective the UK's (at this time still encompassing *all* of Ireland - and JRRT was very much in favor of Irish "home rule") government, at this time also still the center of the British Empire (about which JRRT's views were also *highly* negative), were in containing that pandemic. If that can be ascertained with any accuracy today, especially compared to measures elsewhere. Certainly in his writings, he made no bones about his views on how to control the "Orc pandemic"; which caused him to indulge on no end of philosophical "Laocoön" contortions later.

Hard, cold fact: this pandemic, and it is one, and no, it's not going away anytime soon (it could become something recurring yearly like influenza), is not a matter for politics of any stripe. Those who have made it such deserve the severest condemnation.


----------



## Aldarion (Nov 21, 2020)

Found this:


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/comparing-1918-flu-vs-coronavirus.html




The 1918 Influenza Pandemic: Response




The 1918 Influenza Pandemic: Responses



And yes, closing borders should have been done long time ago, but apparently it is not too late: 1918 flu came in two waves, but second wave was much more lethal. If COVID follows that pattern, closing borders will still help. Overall, as @Olorgando pointed out, Tolkien lived during the time of 1918 pandemic, and will have been familiar with measures taken. By the way, those measures dated back to times of Bubonic plague, as far back as the reign of Justinian. On the other hand, the World War also meant that - due to demands of logistics and shifting of troops - there was a situation not far removed from modern globalized society, looking from perspective of the virus.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 21, 2020)

Modern settlement patterns (meaning "cityfication" or some such term) have definitely "led" viruses (or other pathogens) to declare "PARTY TIME!!!"
Not that this is a modern development.

No large city (NYC, London, Paris, Berlin, whatever) was able to stabilize its population through "native births vs. deaths" until at the earliest the late 19th century, often as late as the early 20th century. Without immigration of some sorts these cities would have shrunk, population-wise. It was only the implementation of sanitary controls, waste sewer (and fresh water) systems, that these cities managed to sustain themselves without immigration.

Utterly pathetic, if one considers the findings at the Mohenjo-daro and Harappa archaeological sites in modern Pakistan, which are at least 4,000 years old.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Nov 22, 2020)

Anyway, let's make Aldarion's point more accurate. I think "sufficient authorization to minions" and "balance of power" will be better instead of "decentralization". Under capable condition such as if the rulers and the ruled are highly correspond, centralization also works well, like Singapore. Instead of strictly-defined "decentralization", I think the word-"widely defined centralization" would fit much more to make a nation great. Such as Athen under Peisistratos's reign, my country under the terms of Jiang Jingguo, USA under Lincon's terms of service, France's 1st Empire and so forth.
No matter what kind of ideologies you use, your minions admire you, and then they sacrifice themselves for you, then you're a good leader, just like what's written in the "Il Principe".


----------



## Bellerophon (Nov 23, 2020)

Olorgando, you beat me to it! 

I think the actual quotation is; 'Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time'.…

It seems to me that a constitutional monarchy combines the kind of apolitical loyalty which Tolkien recognised as a genuinely positive thing with the benefits of democracy.

Walter Bagehot in 'The English Constitution' observes among many other things;

'The characteristic of the English Monarchy is that it retains the
feelings by which the heroic kings governed their rude age, and has
added the feelings by which the Constitutions of later Greece ruled in
more refined ages.'

Perhaps that is no longer quite true in 2020 (He wrote those lines in 1865), and the romance of the Monarchy has worn thinner since his time, but his fundamental premise - that we have a democracy to do the real work of government and which is accountable to the electorate, while at the same time preserving the form and ceremony of a monarchy which _can_ inspire (we hope) a loyalty which is above party divisions, seems valid even now.


----------



## hantale (May 24, 2022)

1stvermont said:


> *His conservatism*
> 
> “_Tolkien was a lifelong enemy of big government in every form, not just the harsher forms we find in soviet communism, German Nazism, or Italian fascism, but also as it manifested itself in British democratic socialism”
> -Jonathan Witt and Jay W The Hobbit Party: The vision of freedom that Tolkien got and the west forgot
> ...


A note on the last part you mentioned, to do with Tolkien's prolife views and the Ents.
When the Ents are saying that the Ent-wives have gone away and they can't find them, I reckon he's referring to his own context of the falling birth rates after WWI. It was so expensive to have children that people avoided it at all costs. At this point in time, contraception and abortion become very common, which would tie in to his prolife views, for, as a Catholic, Tolkien would have opposed these practices.
It's very good food for thought...


----------

