Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Aryan Lass Speaks…

A few nights ago me and my partner were having our 372183th LOTR marathon session and as usual, we got talking about the messages that Tolkein may be trying to convey to us in his works.

I have recently begun to wonder if the Tale of Beren and Luthien, and the Tale of Arwen and Aragorn, both ending in the death of the Elvish princesses after they wed mortal human husbands, are referring to the loss of the immortal beauty of white women to race-mixing? And are they be a warning to the women of the west to only mix with their own kind?

I would love to hear some thoughts on this one.

There are thoughts. Read the whole thing here. It is bizarre beyond comprehension.


  1. Rob F says:

    Oh, God. Talk about getting the wrong end of the stick, and then tripping and ending up with it stuck up your arse.

    I didn’t read all of the posts but I’ll bet that the Variags will pop up somewhere.

    And the Kin-Strife, probably.

  2. Angry Exile says:

    Doesn’t look like any of them have read the foreword where Tolkien talks about allegory and how LOTR isn’t one.

  3. Talwin says:

    Maybe Aryan Lass and her partner would have profited more by spending their time just having a shag.

  4. Kevin B says:

    Why do I get the impression that the figure 372183, rather than being ironic hyberbole, is, in fact, an accurate count of how this bird and her partner spend their time?

  5. JuliaM says:

    Normally, Talwin, I’d agree, but do we really want more of ’em?

  6. Current says:

    Though it sounds strange I think there is a lot more to Tolkien than people think, and a lot more political philosophy. His views are very similar to Hobbes’. I’ve read that the word Hobbit may have come from a 17th century word for supporters of Hobbes.

    I don’t think the races in LOTR are about white nationalism. But, each of them is a reference to the weaknesses and strengths of real human beings. They sort-of encircle real humanity with ideas about what it could be if we were a little different. For example, in many ways the hobbits and the elves are superior to human beings, but they’re superior in different ways. They represent different ways out of Hobbes’ dilemmas.

  7. Paul Marks says:

    Tolkien was certainly not a follower of Thomas Hobbes – he was a follower of what Thomas Hobbes called the “Kingdom of Darkness” i.e. the political philosophy of natural law of the Scholastic Schoolmen (School of Salamanca and so on), they were of course Catholic – but that was not the main thing in this context.

    The main thing is that they supported NATURAL LAW – the great enemy of Hobbes and his idea that “law” is just the commands of the state. And, philsophically, that “law” is about “will” (to Tolkien and co it is about “reason”).

    It is also “catholic” in a non religious sense – i.e. simply UNIVERSAL, not dependent on historical period or race (Stormfront please note).

    “Good and evil are not one think among elves and dwarves and another thing among men…..” The “golden wood” is no different (in moral terms) from your own house.

    Actions thousands of years ago are to be judged by the same moral principles as if they were actions right now.

    And on and on.

    The universal (and unchanging) principles of reason (Aristotelianism)are at the base of this – although it is also connected the “mind fire” of the Stoics (the Christ is the Logos stuff of Christian thought also).

    Very much anti the idea that “right and wrong” are just the boo and cheer words of God. Something being ordered by God does NOT make it right – Calvinists and Muslims to the contrary.

    As Fransisco Suarez put it – “natural law is God’s law – but if God did not exist natural law would be EXACTLY THE SAME”.

    It can go at a very high level – but also very ordinary “every day” stuff.

    Do you remember that dispute we had Current about whether one had to have a thing before one can lend it out? And if you have it you should be able to SHOW IT to me.

    Certainly one can PROMISE to lend something out without actually having it – but one can NOT actually lend something out without having it.

    For example, one can not lend out money without having the money (again one can promise to do it in future – but when one is actually lending it out…..). Hence my repeated request (if you really are innocent of this crime) to “SHOW ME THE MONEY” you are lending out. If you have the money you should be able to SHOW IT TO ME – but if you have not got the money you will not be able to SHOW ME THE MONEY.

    I must stress that this is NOTHING to do with any opposition to lending money at interest (that was hottly debated in all period of history), it is much more basic than that.

    It is a matter of having a thing so that you can lend it out – not chargeing interest on money, actually having the money to start with.

    You wondered why I was so upset about such a matter of economics.

    But that is not all it is, it is in (in fact) part of the logical principles of the universe.

    And that makes it part of the moral order of the universe (is from ought and ought from is – Davy Hume gets upset, although he does this himself).

    That is why I was (and have always been) upset by such practices – not just because they lead to economic harm (although they do), but because they also offend against the moral order of the universe.

    And I can get very “bell, book and candle” about that.

  8. berenike says:

    I always thought the elves were an example of a rational being created for, as the (Catholic) theologians say a purely natural end. (That’s not true, alas. Someone pointed it out to me.) There’s that comment somewhere about men having a place in a future song of whatshisname, but it not yet being known what the plan for the elves is. There’re all kinds of explorations of good and evil, nature and grace and so on in the books.
    The LOTR, Silmarillion, etc, are not allegory. They are per se, in prime, above all, etc, Just Stories. But just as Lewis’s Perelandra books are a kind of explorative imagination-theology in science fiction mode, so Tolkien’s books, while per se Just Stories, use an understanding of the real world as a kind of discipline, the way metre is a discipline for a poet. The dwarves have no free will until whathisname gives them life. “Bad” things are merely warpings of “good” things (the orcs, trolls). It’s not a *bad* thing for the half-elven to die, because to die is to share the fate of men, who will sing with the (whatever the angels are called) in the new creation, whereas no-one knows what will happen to the elves. Etc.

    (I’m not a sad nerd, honest. I don’t read the LOTR more than every five years, if that.)

  9. berenike says:

    “not true” that I “always thought”.

    And I should have said “Yes, Paul Marx makes some sound observations”. There’s lots in the LOTR of what Tolkien thought about the real world, it seems. But then, I suppose that is the case with most novels: Jane Austen, Dickens, Lermontov, …

  10. Paul Marks says:

    Of course the theory of the “White Power” crowd can be tested.

    According to this theory (if I understand it – and I confess I may be in error) if a young white women keeps away from nonwhite people, she will have eternal youth.

    I have some strong doubts about this theory – but should a women wish to test it (by living on some isolated island or whatever) that is up to them.

    As for beauty….

    Many nonwhite people are beautiful and many white people are ugly.

    So that theory falls apart.

  11. Current says:

    I’ll begin with natural law… I don’t believe in natural law, I believe that law should be constructed to aid human happiness. I’m a rule utilitarian. As I’m sure you know that doesn’t mean that my viewpoint on practical matters is necessarily very different to that of natural law supporters.

    I while ago Paul and I had a long argument about 100% reserve banking. Here it is if anyone is interested:

    Paul’s view seems to be that I must disagree with him fundamentally about property law. I don’t think that I do disagree with him about that, though we may disagree about debt laws. What I think Paul wants is “full-reserve” banking. He wants to be able to open an account where the bank will hold base money on his behalf. That’s fair enough, but it’s not what I want. I’m satisfied with a creditor-debtor relationship with my bank. That means my bank doesn’t say “We have £2000 of yours” they say to me “We owe you £2000”. But, I don’t really want to go back over that, I will if people are interested.

    On Tolkien…. If you look at the Hobbits they live in a peaceful and very libertarian society. But they aren’t quite the same as humans. The other races, humans for example, don’t seem to live in the same type of societies. They are ruled by hereditary monarchs, they live in feudal societies. It seems to me the books argue that this is best. For example, in “The Hobbit” the city of Esgaroth (Lake Town) was ruled by an elected leader, the master. The master is portrayed as greedy, cowardly and opportunistic. When the city is attacked by the dragon Smaug he is one of the first to run away. The hereditary leaders of men don’t behave that way. Now, it could be the Tolkien was a supporter of monarchy and something of an opponent of democracy without being an opponent of property rights. That’s Hans-Hoppe’s position, but I don’t see any evidence that it’s Tolkien’s position.

  12. berenike says:

    The natural law is all about happiness. More or less by definition.

  13. Paul Marks says:

    Current – I am talking about the laws of reason (not whether murder and rape should be legal) it is a matter of LOGIC not ethics (although the two are linked).

    You can not lend out money you do not have. And if you have money to lend out you should be able to SHOW IT TO ME.

    Nothing to do with “fractional reserve banking” in terms of what people THINK that means – i.e. lending out a “fraction” of savings. Most people are not thinking of (say) “one hundred tenths”as a “fraction”.

    As for Thomas Hobbes.

    He holds that whilst someone has a right to defend themselves they do NOT have the right to defend anyone else.

    In short that the state can murder anyone (right in front of you) and you have no right (let alone duty) to try and stop them.

    This reduces people to isolated individuals (it destoys civil society) – but Hobbes does not care about that, because he believes that the only alternative to tyranny is chaos, and he prefers tyranny (whether by one man – or a ruling group, it does not have to be a King).

    Of course, Hobbes also defines “law” as COMMAND (and sees it terms of WILL – not reason).

    So, to Hobbes, if the state sends people to murder or rape – it is not murder or rape, as those words imply law (and law is just the command of the state).

    This is not exactly Tolkien’s cup of tea.

    By the way to Tolkien (like Aristotle) there is a vast difference between a monarchy and one man rule.

    Just as there is a vast difference between an atistocracy and an oligarchy.

    And between a polity where most people have the vote – and a “democracy”.

    The difference is THE RULE OF LAW.

    Under a rightful “monarchy” these principles of law are respected – under a on man “tyranny” they are not.

    Under an “aristocracy” these princples of law are respected – under an “oligarchy” they are not.

    Under a polity where most people have the vote these principles of law are respected – under a “democracy” (by which was meant “mob rule” without lawful limits) they are not.

    Thomas Hobbes did not understand what the principles of the rule of law were (he did not have a clue – to him “law” was just the arbitrary commands who ever was in charge) he was a “voluntarist” (like a Calvinist or Islamist) in matters of law.

    Therefore he had no way of judgeing between governments and constitutions (unwritten custom or written document).

    Henry the First’s oath to obey the traditional laws in 1100.

    The Great Charter of 1215.

    EVERYTHING. And not just in England – for example the Edict of Quierry in 877 holding that even a King of France could not take a fief of land away from its lawful holders (and their children).

    Is all MEANINGLESS to Thomas Hobbes. Because the ruler or rulers can do anything the feel like – just like some asiatic despot.

    That is why to treat him as a great political philosopher is an error.

    The error of treating a lawful monarchy (such as that of Aragorn) with a despotism (such as that of Sauron).

    And this is NOT a matter fo Aragorn being a nice bloke and Sauron not being nice.

    It is much more fundemental than that.

  14. Paul Marks says:

    The most straightforward work on this is not by a modern philospher it is (of course) “The Law” by Bastiat.

    How people react to this work is good test of them (of them – not of the work). And it is a moral as well as an intellectual test.

  15. Current says:

    > You can not lend out money you do not have.

    To put the matter bluntly the idea that fractional-reserve banks lend out money they don’t have is simply slander, they do not. I have explained this to you already in the earlier thread, I don’t want to go over it here. Clearly you are satisfied to take Rothbard’s word as gospel on how banking works and not investigate it yourself.

    > By the way to Tolkien (like Aristotle) there is a vast difference between a monarchy
    > and one man rule.

    Obviously you aren’t a great fan of Hobbes, neither am I. To some extent I agree that Tolkien is describing a world where among humans there are relatively fixed laws. I’m not sure though that that means the places he describes are monarchies in the positive sense you mean though (there clearly is in the shire I agree). You may be right though, I’ll admit I haven’t investigated it closely.

  16. Paul Marks says:

    Current – I have asked you MANY TIMES to SHOW ME THE MONEY.

    If you have the money and want to lend it FINE – even 99% or 100% of it. If people trust you to lend out their money.

    But you can not SHOW ME THE MONEY – because you do not have it. In short banks DO lend out “money” that does not really exist, they lend out MORE money than was ever really saved.

    You accuse me of “slander” – yet you still refuse to SHOW ME THE MONEY.

    Not words in a ledger, THE ACTUAL MONEY.

    If I am guilty of “slander” surely you will SHOW ME THE MONEY.

    You can not answer the logical point (or you would have already done so – you would have SHOWN ME THE MONEY).

    But there is also an historical point.

    If you were right and banks do not expand credit (i.e. lend out money than is not from real savings) then no boom/bust events would take place in countries that did not have Central Banks (or other such).

    And this is SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

    For example, look at American history before the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 – plenty of boom/bust events took place (although in each bust event the bank credit, the credit/money bubble was liquidated – that is the DIFFERENCE with what happens after a Central Bank takes control).

    So what you have said is logically false – and historically false.

    And no amount of “double Dutch” language can save your position.

    Tolkien “relatively fixed laws”.

    Not what I am talking about, you have missed the point.

    “Among humans”.

    Again you have missed the point.

    As for utilitarianism – if (and you may NOT be) you mean the “greatest happiness of the greatest number” being the aim of “law” (law being defined as the commands of the state).

    This is a category mistake – confusing “good” as in pleasure (or happiness) with “good” as in right (I will leave aside subtle distinctions between “good” and “rights” that philosphers like Prichard and Ross made – as to confuse “good as in moral” and “good as in pleasurable” is a much bigger thing).

    Take the example of rape.

    It is not “wrong” because the pleasure of the rapist is less than the pain of the victim.

    If (for example) a hundred men rape a women their pleasure will likely be greater than her pain (especially if she passes out after the first few – or was drugged to start with), but this MISSES THE POINT.

    The point being that good-as-in-moral and good-as-in-pleasureable are not the same thing.

    The pleasure of the rapist or rapists (their happiness, at the time, and reliving the event in their memory) is NOT RELEVANT – because right and wrong are not about pleasure.

    Doing right and being happy are not the same thing. The just man may also be a very unhappy man – and the unjust man may be very happy indeed (contrary to Plato).

    It is a category mistake to try and define right and wrong in terms of pleasure and pain (“happiness and unhappiness”).

    And the basis of law is (or rather should be) right and wrong.

    The virtue of justice (the basis of right and wrong) is not “making people happy”, it is the nonaggression principle.

    Now as an Austrian School man in terms of economics I believe that acting rightily will ALSO lead to prosperity (which may or may not lead to happiness – that is a different argument)., I also happen to believe that without freedom there can be real moral growth (in terms of personal character).

    Therefore I believe that acting rightly will ALSO lead to conclusions that utilitarian (at least a “rule utilitarian” rather than “act utilitarian”) will also accept.

    However, “increasing happiness” is not the DEFINITION of acting justly – and the virtue of JUSTICE is what right and wrong (the law) is about.

    For example, the state may pass a statute (a “law”) saying that a certain number of women will be drugged and handed over to be gang raped (the Japanese authorities basically did this – although they left out the being drugged bit) the argument being that happiness will be served by this – both the happiness of the rapists and the general happiness by the army being stronger and the state. and the people, prospering.

    Now such a statute may or may not increase happiness.

    But it is NOT JUST.

    Justice is NOT defined in terms of increasing or reducing happiness.

    And it is the principle of JUSTICE that defines right and wrong.

    Trying to apply the principle of justice (to each their own) in the circumstances of time and place is very difficult – very difficult indeed.

    And people of good will may disagree about the best way to do this.

    This is why people of good will may disagree about what the best form of positive law (i.e. the effort to apply the principle of justice in the circumstances of time and place) is.

    But first one must agree that the business of law is about applying the principle of justice. However, much people of good will may disagree about how to do that in the circumstances of time and place.

    If one does NOT agree on that basic point – then that is over. No further moral conversation with such a person is useful.

    It is like trying to talk to someone who insists that 1+1 does NOT equal 2.

    Or someone who claims that he does not lend out money that does not exist but refuses to SHOW ME THE MONEY (i.e. the notes and coins) that he claims to have available to lend.

    Instead showing words in a ledger book. Or on a computer screen.

  17. Paul Marks says:

    By the way – a person who defined law in terms of “happyness” would take a far HARDER (not a softer) line on bankers than I do.

    Such a person would simply consider whether a certain type of action by bankers was for the “greatest good of the greatest number” (with “good” being defined as pleasure of happyness).

    Such a view would lead to very unhappy consequences for bankers, in that many of the activities would be banned and the penalities would be savage.

    Most likely public executions – so that the population could have the pleasure of watching the event (and playing it back – again and again).

    Now for me……

    For me the situation is much more difficult.

    I am not sure whether certain (very harmful) actions of bankers can be banned – as I am not sure they strictly violate the nonaggression principle (i.e. are UNJUST – in the strict sense).

    In short I may (MAY) have to stand idle whilst credit-bubble banks go bankrupt (via various antics) and the bankers themselves go away unpunished.

    Over time people would learn not to put money into such institutions – but that is not a short term “fix”.

    For example, a banker could hide behind legal technicalities.

    Saying (for example) “I am not loaning out money that does not exist” (fraud), “I am ……”

    I am sure inventive minds could think up all sorts of clever language – to avoid the words “lending out money”.

    The ECONOMIC effects would be the same (terrible – utterly terrible) – but if a banker carefully avoided the claim that they were lending out money (money that did not exist) they might be able to formally avoid fraud (even fraud correctly defined – I am, of course, not interested in the present definitions which have been largely made up to suit the bankers themselves).

  18. Paul Marks says:

    Sadly not needless to say……

    The virtue of justice (to each their own, the nonaggression principle) is not the only virtue.

    There is also (for example) the virtue of benevolence (of trying to help others – help them to flourish, be happy).

    This is a virtue – but it is (of course) not the basis of “right and wrong” as in the virtue of justice (the principle which positive law should try and establish in the circumstances of time and place).

    By the way “among humans”.

    Among any “beings” – it is wrong to aggress against any being.

    The “reasoning I” (being) is not any less of a being because they have pointed ears (like an Elf).

    Or are a thinking tree – like an Ent.

  19. NickM says:

    The problem is of course defining “pleasure”. Now our co-conspirator RAB is a keen golfer. So a new set of top of the range golfing spanners might bring him joy but I’d be like, “You *really* shouldn’t have…”. I mean there is a reason restaurants have a menu. Anyway Paul, fancy “occupying” somewhere for Ent’s rights! A good point well made and actually relevant because we will both live to see the day when it is hideously debated when the offspring of this Lenovo start telling jokes.

  20. Paul Marks says:

    Defining pleasure is easy enough – although whether pleasure is the same thing as long term “happiness” is another matter.

    Current could take the Epicuran or “rule unitilitarian” position that it it often does NOT – and that long term happiness (human flourishing) often depends on rejecting certain pleasures, or (at least) in drastically limiting them.

    Not that Epicurus (or anyone else) could help him out of the illogical (I use the word “illogical” deliberatly) of thinking that people can lend out stuff they have not got. And then claiming that they do have this stuff – but then being unwilling to show anyone the stuff. “We have lots of money to lend – but you are may not see it, just look at these numbers in our ledger instead”.

    “I am wearing a wonderful suit of clothing – accept that you ordinary people can not see it, because you are too stupid”.

    “Why is your skin going so blue in the cold?”

    “It is NOT cold – I am very warm, my wonderful suit of clothing keeps me warm and….”

    On the rights of Ents…..

    Yes I would defend their ownership of Fangorn forest. Against any claims of invading humans.

    Accept that some of the trees are conscious and, therefore, might claim self ownership…

    Ouch – this is getting complicated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *