Why the Left Hates The Lord of the Rings

^[1]1,275 words

As recent American political events have demonstrated, the modern political Left can no longer be seen as making any legitimate contribution to philosophy, culture, politics, society, and so on. They have essentially embraced a type of political schizophrenia which has no real relation to the actual classical Leftist theory to which they pay lip service, only pretending to abide by the ideology’s original insights. The political Left of the modern Western world is essentially a rationalization for all that is evil today. It is for this reason that, as many have noticed, Tolkien’s masterwork has come under fire for themes which run contrary to the corruption and decadence that has overthrown our society.

The Lord of the Rings is a classic story of virtue, heroism, chivalry, and brotherhood in which our heroes of the Fellowship represent objective good, while their adversary Sauron represents objective, anti-human (or in this case anti-human/elf/hobbit/etc.) evil which aims to rule over the free peoples of the world through darkness and homogenization. Tolkien claimed to be apolitical in his books and he said that he never intended for them to be construed in a political manner; I believe him. The story is simply one of good triumphing over evil.

It is not by chance that Sauron is an ancient, perennial being who can apparently only be temporarily defeated until he rises again. He and his orc slaves represent chaos and decadence, just as what prevails in our world today. It is these suggestions of the timeless truths of the human experience which makes Tolkien’s story so magical and yet so believable, despite the complete lack of nuance between the protagonists and villains.

Who makes up Sauron’s army? There are three main archetypes, the first of which is the traitor and self-appointed enemy to his own race: Saruman the wizard. The traitor is perhaps the most hated in all human societies. It is therefore no surprise that traitors are traditionally given the worst penalties for their crimes. For example, in Dante’s Inferno traitors are perpetually frozen alive in the lowest pit of Hell, and Captain Corneliu Codreanu remarked that “the first and fiercest punishment ought to fall first on the traitor, second on the enemy.” Saruman betrays the human race to the Uruk-hai orcs not because he believes in their cause’s legitimacy, but in its inevitable victory. Rather than die trying to save Middle Earth, as many of the gallant knights of Rohan and Gondor do, he corrupts the sacred keep of Isengard and jumps on the bandwagon of the new order which Sauron promises. He does this exclusively for personal gain.

The second archetype is the orcs, who have inspired the Left’s ire due to the popular perception that the orcs are a parody of blacks. However, Tolkien never implied this himself, and it is ironically the only ones who do are the Leftists. Does this mean that the Left believes blacks are orc-like? If not, then why do they make this connection? It is here that the mask slips and the Sarumanic nature of the white shitlib left reveals itself. This is not a radical proposition; Theodore Kaczynski wrote of the Leftist in his manifesto that

[m]any leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being… otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems.

Furthermore, how effective would Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals be if blacks and other ethnic aliens didn’t provide a perpetual underclass in America for the Judeo-Bolsheviks to agitate? Indeed, if blacks acted like Nubian elites and built a complex society which other peoples wished to emulate and envied, then this comparison wouldn’t be so believable — and yet here we are. Personally, I see no evidence that Tolkien had any specific race from our world in mind; if he did, it was more likely the Indians, who were beginning to settle in large numbers in Great Britain at the time he was writing.

The last archetype is the Haradrim who, unlike the orcfolk, are an obvious representation of Arabs, particularly the men of Near Harad, who are the predominate type of Haradrim described in the books. Interestingly, it is only this group among the forces of absolute evil which Tolkien presents with any ambiguity, describing their leader in favorable terms. As opposed to the others, the Haradrim are presented as a people whose values and warrior culture are honorable, but who are being naïvely manipulated by forces of chaos which they do not fully understand. Is this not precisely what is currently happening today between the Christian and Muslim worlds, where two civilizations are being pitted against each other for the sake of malevolent forces whose plans are not yet fully understood by many?

It may seem that I have undermined my own proposition that Tolkien was not political in his writings. In today’s context, perhaps it does seem that he was, but we must remember that the books were written nearly 70 years ago, and more than a decade before the cultural revolutions of the late 1960s. Therefore if we see any political relevance in them, it’s because of the circumstances of our own times. Tolkien was simply telling the story of the battle between objective good and evil, using timeless themes to do so. On one hand there is the bromance of the young (for hobbits) lads who set off on their adventure under the guidance of a wise elder to save civilization as they know it. They literally assemble a Männerbund to confront an eternal chaotic force with no hope of success. On the other is the chaotic force itself, whose lieutenant Sauron betrays everything he had pledged to protect, sending legions of orcs and Haradim to destroy anyone who dares to stand in their way. There is nothing inherently political in this. If we see a resemblance to our political situation, it says more about our age than about Tolkien.

So why has the political Left condemned The Lord of the Rings? It should be plainly obvious now: because The Lord of the Rings paints them exactly how they truly are. The story perfectly illustrates their ugliness, inside and out. They represent evil in its darkest form. Thus, their politicization of the saga is in fact a testament to the objective and perennial evil which they now represent. The name “Satan” comes from the ancient Hebrew word Shaytan, which literally means the “adversary” — and it is Sauron who embodies this archaic, eldritch theme. The Left sees themselves in Saruman, the orcs, and the Haradrim.

There is simply no way in which they can somehow interpret the story to see themselves in the knightly spirit of the Fellowship or the genuine brotherly love between Frodo and Samwise.

Given that there is simply no way to deny the obvious parallels other than to attempt to poison the well and flee, disparaging the story in its entirety as “racist” or something of the sort, it begs the final question, which is no less important: How did we get to a point where absolute evil has been given a legitimate platform in today’s politics? As I ponder this, I am reminded of our heroes who are being held in solitary confinement at this moment, guarded by orcs on the orders of traitors while conservacucks wash their hands of it, and I remind myself that we are not the bad guys of this story. Our movement soon will be vindicated.

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

• First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
• Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here: