Reflections...

MMXI was another sad year of worldwide depression. The politicians have constantly lied their way into our wallets over and over and over again. By now I can confidently say there is no way back from this. We aren't standing on top of a cliff, we have already fallen off - now it's just the case of who has the best parachute. This is why this depression has hit people who are dependent on others hardest. Personally, as a student, I am still dependent on my parents. So I am an extra weight for their parachutes to carry. Most of my peers and people in my age groups are in the same exact situation. Food and commodity prices have gone up drastically in the past year, and parasticial entities like the Polish government have already promised their slaves more taxes and higher prices for 2012.
As is tradition for The Young Monarchist, tomorrow I will come out with a discussion of the expected situation in 2012, which I actually expect to change quite a bit. For now, as a rather downcast conclusion to 2011, all we can do is turn once more to the wisdom of those before us.

J.R.R. Tolkien's Gandalf gives us hope. People sometimes despair, but that is only because we have that safe Hobbit instinct inside of us.
'I wish it need not have happened in my time,' said Frodo.
'So do I,' said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'
We must do what we can and try to continue on hoping for some light in the tunnel, however dim or brief it might be at first.

Reaching for the Ring in Our Lives

J.R.R. Tolkien, the greatest anarchist author of the 20th Century, understood the nature of Evil in the realm of human conduct very well. I am, in fact, working on a series of essays describing Tolkien's take on Good and Evil. I have started more work in this area because clearly some of his conclusions are very obvious, and yet people do not understand them even after reading The Lord of the Rings (let alone any of his other great works). Professor Tolkien's masterpiece is not some analogy to the real world (World Wars, the Cold War, or whatever) as many Tolkien-fans would like to believe. The Lord of the Rings delves much deeper into the human psyche than just merely describing external events. Let's ask one simple question: Why does Frodo aim to destroy the Ring, if it is obvious that in the hands of Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman, or even Denethor the Ring could be used to utterly defeat The Dark Lord Sauron? The answer is obvious: Because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Furthermore, multiple heroes (most notably Galadriel) tell Frodo that anyone willing to use the Ring is implicitly already corrupted by its power, and any use of the Ring will make an individual more corrupted. In the end, anyone who uses the Ring, whether for good or for ill, will become "The Dark Lord". And the One Ring is a symbol of violence and aggression as a means to achieving one's ends. Once any man accepts the maxim that 'the ends justify the means', he has already crossed that line, and can be said to be a slave of the Ring.
And so it is here on Earth. Any time we choose to use violence to fulfil our wants or needs, we have taken up the Ring. And every single time such an act occurs, we become more and more accustomed to it, until it becomes a necessity to use violence in order to achieve our ends. Institutions like the State are only illustrations of how much we are addicted to aggressive power as individuals in our society. People aren't able to use their own good will and ingenuity to get what they want. Slowly but surely, most 'citizens' become grovelling slaves at the feet of Evil. Why did the Orcs follow Sauron? It was for two reasons: they feared him, and they enjoyed what he could do for them (that is, pillage and steal the wealth of others). How is that any different from your average taxpayer or welfare recipient?!

The greatest role model in The Lord of the Rings is the quiet Ranger of Gondor, Faramir. It is through his lips that Tolkien says about the Ring, the symbol of power and violence: "I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory."
I wonder if any modern fan of the State, warfare, or taxation ever read this book...

What is Pity for?

Pity is a rather confusing emotion. On the one hand it seems good - but it can surely have bad results. I would venture as far as to say that most problems of the welfare state and socialism are created by people feeling pity for others. Herbert Spencer, in his essay "The Coming Slavery", put it this way:

"The kinship of pity to love is shown among other ways in this, that it idealizes its object. Sympathy with one in suffering suppresses, for the time being, remembrance of his transgressions. The feeling which vents itself in “poor fellow!” on seeing one in agony, excludes the thought of “bad fellow,” which might at another time arise. Naturally, then, if the wretched are unknown or but vaguely known, all the demerits they may have are ignored; and thus it happens that when the miseries of the poor are dilated upon, they are thought of as the miseries of the deserving poor, instead of being thought of as the miseries of the undeserving poor, which in large measure they should be. Those whose hardships are set forth in pamphlets and proclaimed in sermons and speeches which echo throughout society, are assumed to be all worthy souls, grievously wronged; and none of them are thought of as bearing the penalties of their misdeeds."

But I would argue that pity is a good emotion. The problem is, as Spencer suggests, the misdirection of it. What the problem has always been is the lack of reasonability the average person displays. This blog is all about just that - reason. We libertarians have been, along with conservatives, often labeled as callous. Supposedly because we don't favor government welfare, we don't favor charity. We don't like "helping people". This is absolutely absurd. As studies have shown, conservatives give multiple times the amount of money (on average) to charity as compared to social-democrats and other leftists.
The emotion we call pity is an instinctual "red light" that may show us something bad is happening. If I see an old woman begging for change on the street, the "light" comes on - I pity her. The problem is not charity itself (fueled by pity!), but the way the charity is administered. Government welfare is a gigantic loss of money, time, and effort. Statistics show that for every dollar destined for welfare the poor recipients only receive 25 cents! That is a tragic result! Common rhetoric of the leftists and statists is "we need to eliminate government waste" or "there is no use in cutting programs, we just need to streamline them and fix them". This is not the case. Government welfare programs end up being welfare for the government employees (who in most cases are half-wits who would not be able to get a decent job in a free economy).
Furthermore I would like to say that these people (pro-government statists) do not actually feel real pity. Pity is a feeling that inspires you to help, not defer the responsibility to other people (through coercive government means). The statists say that private charity is discriminatory and small. I say that their charity is just a dirty callous machine. It is emotionless and truly an evil Behemoth. It breeds poverty instead of eliminating it. It is un-Darwinist, unnatural, and cold. It is devoid of all pity instead of being filled with it.

Under regular circumstances people can apply charity where it is necessary - where pity really directs them. Such a process of helping the deserving poor rather than the welfare addicts is Darwinistic, moral, and does not require government coercion. What did Gandalf say when Frodo suggested it was a pity Bilbo had not killed the poor creature, Gollum? Did the evil little wretch deserve death?
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least."
Professor Tolkien was a very wise man.

Anarcho-Monarchism in The War of the Ring

I have always maintained that John Ronald Reuel Tolkien was a man of great and visionary mind as well as honorable and chivalrous disposition. A rare breed in today's times of leftist propaganda. I remember a few weeks ago I spoke about the concept of Honor with a few friends at a debate club. What I got as an answer was a chuckle and snickering remark that in today's world there is no such thing as honor. And indeed this is true. Honor has become something antiquated - something to be laughed at and mocked. This is the result of leftist propaganda which we have been subjected to for decades if not centuries...
But back to Mr. Tolkien. He accurately described what I would consider a war of Anarcho-Monarchists against Socialist-Statists.
There is no doubt in my mind that Sauron, the Dark Lord, is the abuser of power. He is a socialist. His armies are his mere slaves. In fact, the greater his warriors and generals are, the more slavish they are in their nature. Note: The Nazgul (Ring-wraiths) are his greatest lieutenants and yet they are mere shadows of men bound to his will. He gives them power, but they can only use it to serve him, to obey his every command. Sauron rules by fear. His soldiers are afraid of battle with his enemies, but they are more afraid of him and therefore must obey. This is statism at its worst. The state has only one weapon - fear. It punishes as opposed to the capitalist free market, which rewards. It is the stick, not the carrot.
And what about the other side? These are the men who serve their lords freely. They are fighting for bonds of kinship and friendship. They are honorbound. Theoden, Aragorn, Gandalf - these are not tyrants who rule. They are Kings who lead. They inspire their men, not threaten them.
This is what I call Anarcho-Monarchism. A system of allodial property rights and voluntary feudal relationships. It does not do what leftists want, it does not support equality, egalitarianism, or destroy hierarchy. If the left want equality, what could be more equal than the slaves of Sauron, writhing together in the dirt under his feet? And make no mistake, Sauron need not be a man. He is the personification of collective power, of abuse, of force and mutual aggression.

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
Currently the Dark Lord resides on his throne in the White House. Sad truth.

Ethics of Power in The Lord of the Rings

Certain friends of mine have told me I make J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy writings sound like some kind of religious prophecy. I actually find this to be a compliment because that is exactly what I intend! I have always said that The Lord of the Rings was my first Bible. It is one of the four great works that changed my life (albeit at age 10). I was challenged to find ten quotes in The Lord of the Rings which are philosophically and morally significant. This is not a challenge at all, I can point to at least fifty or sixty such quotes. But the most powerful ones have all revolved around the subject of power and power destroying good. Even when used for good power will produce evil in the end. Tolkien really understood this. I do not know if he consciously brought in so many references on the topic into his writing, but they are certainly there. And there are few writers as eloquent and wonderful in their writing as Tolkien. The two best quotations are probably from my two favourite characters in LOTR:

"I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo."

"Don't... tempt me Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo. I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."

We must understand that the fabled One Ring is a symbol of ultimate power. Power is always evil, never good. As I wrote several posts ago, we cannot employ power and coercion for good, only for bad. But do we really need Faramir or Gandalf to tell us this?!

"Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect all who seek it." - Frank Herbert. Fantasy and sci fi authors really do get it right!

Why Monarchism?

People ask me sometimes: Aren't you an extreme libertarian? How is anarchism compatible with this whole monarchist mumbo-jumbo? Aren't you being hypocritical?
My answer is: Well, not really! I happen to think everyone can decide what system they want to live under - which is why I am philosophically an anarcho-libertarian. But personally I would love to live in a monarchy! Not a constitutional one of course, but a private property (feudal) one. And I would like to have a say in how this monarchy originates. It wouldn't matter that much who became King, but I would nonetheless prefer it to be someone normal. If someone told me that Alabama was seceding from the USA and Llewellyn H. Rockwell was to be the King of the new state, I would move there tomorrow without the slightest hesitation and seek citizenship immediately (another fact is that, of course, Mr. Lew Rockwell would not be a person who would agree to such an arrangement). But the good thing about monarchy is that it does not require a "good" King to function well. Most liberals and socialists, who I hate with a passion, would make great Kings! This is because most liberals, democrats, and socialists are actually very materialistic and greedy (unlike what their media persona would indicate). Surveys have long shown that conservatives and other free-marketers give many more times in charity per person than the liberal gang. Thus Mr. Gordon Brown, who was an atrocious Prime Minister, might have made quite a good absolute monarch. He robbed the UK consistently during his tenure as PM precisely because he was greedy for power, money, and praise. Now, if he was a monarch, his greed would be the exact thing that would restrain him from robbing the people. Because by robbing the people a monarch robs himself! What an interesting paradox! This is particularly the reason I favour monarchy as a personal choice for me (a Feudal-style monarchy of course). That and the cultural advantage. Who ever heard of an ill-mannered King or an ill-mannered Court?

I have often wondered why I was ever inclined so much to the right - in the direction of Monarchy, Individualism, and Voluntarism. The answer is now clear to me. It was the works of J.R.R. Tolkien that first set me on this path. Reading his Fantasy was really influential on my young mind. The values portrayed therein are fundamental to my understanding of the world. And Professor Tolkien himself 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 Beauty of The English Language

English to me has a special quality. When reading certain verse, it really makes the bones tingle. It can be particularly onomatopoeic and lyrical even in prose. The epitome of these qualities, for me, are the works of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien (1892–1973), who reinvented the idea of Anglo-Saxon mythology and revolutionized the world of fantasy by setting it within an almost divine and definitely Catholic framework. The Old English style and rhythm really beat a pulse into the reader's mind. Consider the following stanza from his 1937 novel, The Hobbit:
Far over the misty mountains cold
To dungeons deep and caverns old
We must away ere break of day
To seek the pale enchanted gold.

Or the following example from the same book:

The dwarves of yore made mighty spells
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep where dark things sleep
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

Or something just with less power, yet more beauty from The Silmarillion:

Lúthien Tinúviel
more fair than mortal tongue can tell.
Though all to ruin fell the world
and were dissolved and backward hurled
unmade into the old abyss,
yet were its making good, for this—
the dusk, the dawn, the earth, the sea—
that Lúthien for a time should be.

Inspiring? Certainly! And this from a man whose ideals motivated the emergence of my own. I live by The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings. Any Monarchist, Anarchist, or Catholic worth a damn should read his works and feel the power of those words. Aside from the amazing imagery the books also offer lessons in ethics and morality. Even in The Hobbit, which is commonly referred to as a children's tale, rather difficult ethical dilemmas appear. Did Bilbo Baggins have the right to the Arkenstone of Thrain? Did the Elven king behave properly upon encountering the Dwarves in his lands? These are questions we might all benefit from analyzing. All important themes are looked upon: loyalty, authority, power, risk, friendship, piety, strength of will...

To finish on a high note, here is another brilliant piece from none other than The Hobbit:
Alive without breath,
As cold as death;
Never thirsty, ever drinking,
All in mail never clinking
What is it?