Torturing Tolkien: How Wokesters Seek to Remake Middle-earth

Tolkien

There’s a new power threatening J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth. It’s a smothering cloud of absurdity that’s seeking, ever seeking, to devour all commonsense and reason. Its minions work tirelessly to cover the land in a darkness of wokeness not seen in this or any age.

Under its banner of DIVERSITY, woke scholars and activists seek to remake Middle-earth to their liking by waking the rest of us to its deficiencies. In doing so, they torture all things Tolkien.

Tolkien, the creator of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, would likely quail at The Tolkien Society’s theme for their July 3-4 Summer Seminar. “Tolkien and Diversity” features these torturous topics:

Gondor in Transition: A Brief Introduction to Transgender Realities in The Lord of the Rings

Pardoning Saruman?: The Queer in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings

The Lossoth: Indigeneity, Identity, and Antiracism

The Invisible Other: Tolkien’s Dwarf-Women and the ‘Feminine Lack’

Queer Atheists, Agnostics, and Animists, Oh, My!

“Something Mighty Queer”: Destabilizing Cishetero Amatonormativity in the Works of Tolkien

Goblins and gobbledygook

What seems not to occur to these wokesters is that transgenderism, homosexuality, racism, and sexism have absolutely nothing to do with Tolkien’s creations. It’s likely that not one of their precious themes even entered his mind as he crafted tales of hobbits and dwarves, wizards and dark lords, elves and orcs, adventure and friendship.

Tolkien’s themes, like any good storyteller’s, transcend pedestrian presentism, social justice, equity and other spirit of the age fluff. His tales shimmer with light and magic and good versus evil.

Perhaps it’s Tolkien’s “versions” of good and evil that generate woke creations of nonexistent themes in Middle-earth. They don’t exist there because they have no place there. They only exist in our world because of a lack of courage to resist the constant bombardment from moralizing Utopians.

Assailing Gondor

Minas Tirith in transition? In the Lord of the Rings, the only transition Gondor faces is from freedom to slavery, and it has nothing to do with transgenderism. There aren’t any transgender realities in that fantasy world, but there are surely transgender fantasies in ours.

In reality, true transgenderism is exceedingly rare. In WokeWorld, one need only want to be of a gender he or she is not. Apparently, in the minds of woke folk, when it comes to transgenderism, there are no biological realities. Yet there are transgender realities in The Lord of the Rings?

It’s difficult to imagine Faramir, Gondor’s Captain of the Guard, caring one whit about gender or transgenderism when fighting foes that seek his life and the destruction of his fair city. When facing the Lord of the Nazgûl, the Witch-King of Angmar, is Faramir pondering preferred pronouns?

The PRIDE of Saruman

The wizard Saruman had his opportunity for pardon, and he chose pride—the sin, not the scene. Does the presenter of “Pardoning Saruman?: The Queer in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings” think the wizard and Wormtongue are gay lovers? In Tolkien’s world, Saruman and Gríma are master and minion. Are there hidden aspects of homosexuality in their relationship of which even Tolkien was unaware?

One would have to invent something much more queer about Saruman than his penchant for isolation in his tower of Orthanc or his seductive and beguiling voice. The truth is that Tolkien didn’t address homosexuality in the Lord of the Rings for at least three reasons.

First, it would make no sense in furthering his plot. Second, Tolkien was a committed Catholic and a believer in God’s design for love and marriage as between one man and one woman. Third, he was a linguist and lover of language and “faerie” stories, not a social justice warrior.

Warriors and women

Dwarf-women in Tolkien’s tales? There aren’t any in his story, but obviously they exist in Middle-earth. Otherwise, there would be no Bifur, Bofur, Bombur or Balin—or the illustrious Thorin Oakenshield. The absurdity of justifying the existence of male dwarves in Tolkien’s fantasy is eclipsed only by criticism of his dearth of female dwarves and a supposed “Feminine Lack” in his tales.

By the way, Bilbo might have something to say about the “Feminine Lack” when it comes to his battles with Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. When it comes to indomitable Lobelia, he would welcome a “Feminine Lack.”

Feminine lack? What of the role of the Elf Queen Galadriel? What of Arwen, Aragorn’s love and future queen? Or Samwise Gamgee’s love interest, Rosie? Tolkien’s tales have a lot to do with war and wizards, swords and shields, orcs and trolls. If he were a sexist, would he have had the warrior Éowyn, King Théoden’s daughter vanquish the aforementioned Lord of the Nazgûl?

Éowyn the Fierce

If there were indeed a feminine lack in the Lord of the Rings, we would be cheated this glorious and beautiful passage as Éowyn, disguised as a man called Dernhelm, challenges the dreaded Witch-King over the dying body of her father and king:

“Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!”

A cold voice answered: ‘Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shriveled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye.”

A sword rang as it was drawn. “Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.”

“Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!”

Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel.

“But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund’s daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.”

Is there a scintilla of feminine lack in Éowyn’s courage and strength here or anywhere else in the Lord of the Rings?

Begone, you wokesters

It’s likely no coincidence that The Tolkien Society is bending to the will of the wokesters after partnering with Amazon for their Lord of the Rings TV series. Talk about a power bent on world domination. What Amazon wants, Amazon gets. There is no resisting the power of Lord Bezos.

If The Tolkien Society wanted to stay true their president and reason for existing, they would’ve partnered with Amazon with the condition that Amazon preserves the magic and mystery of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings in all its beauty and goodness. Perhaps they did, but the topic list of their upcoming Summer Seminar tells a far different tale.

If only Gandalf the White could make an appearance at their gathering. He might listen to the nonsense for a twinkling before scattering them with a commanding, “Begone!”

Are cops racists or victims of a new revolution?

revolution

Racism or revolution? It’s a fair question in any honest assessment of our current chaos. Cop shoots black man, people cry racism, protests turn into lawless looting and destruction. What isn’t talked about is the key to the entire mess—personal responsibility. And what lurks in the background is a new revolution.

First, who’s responsible for George Floyd’s death? Daunte Wright’s? One could say former Officers Derek Chauvin and Kim Potter, respectively, but this would be lazy thinking and dishonest. Here’s a better question: Who’s responsible for their lives?

Before we poke the hornet’s nest, let’s consider facts.

Both men had criminal records. Both were known by local police. One was an addict; the other had a warrant out for his arrest. Both men chose to commit crimes; George Floyd tried to pass off a counterfeit bill; Daunte Wright illegally possessed a firearm. He also drove with an expired license plate. Keeping one’s vehicle current is a basic responsibility for all licensed drivers. Wright failed to do so, which led to his being pulled over. This is when he made his fatal choice.

Choices and consequences

Imagine yourself in his situation. An officer is arresting you. Your choices are: A) allow yourself to be handcuffed or B) break free and get back into your car or run or fight or anything other than acquiesce to arrest. Any rational and honest person has to know that he alone is responsible for his actions. Everyone is responsible for his or her choices—personally responsible. 

What did Daunte choose to do? He chose flight. This triggered the arresting officers, which prompted Officer Potter to use what she says she thought was her taser in order to subdue Wright. The fact that she used her firearm and then expressed shock and dismay afterwards indicates incompetence, not racism.

George Floyd and Daunte Wright chose to commit the crimes that invited police attention. They had criminal records because they chose to be criminals. They alone bear responsibility for setting the stage for negative interaction with law enforcement. We can debate the culpability of the officers, and a jury is deciding whether Derek Chauvin is guilty of anything more than excessive force.

They may find him guilty of much more, but the inconvenient truth for Black Lives Matter is that George Floyd and Daunte Wright would likely both be alive today had they not chosen to commit crimes. Their lives would truly matter because they’d be alive to make better choices. They could choose to become ex-criminals.

Personally irresponsible

In any era prior to our present age of victimhood and “systemic racism,” both men would bear personal responsibility for making choices that led to their deaths. This is not to say that Derek Chauvin isn’t guilty of manslaughter or murder.

The truth is that George Floyd and Daunte Wright and Michael Brown and others are solely responsible for their life choices—especially those that put them at odds with law enforcement. We all are. Rather than confront this truth, opportunists (and true believers) cry racism. The reality is that the vast majority of police aren’t any more racist than you or I. Many are simply weary and wary of the same people saying the same things in order to avoid personal responsibility. And now they’re called racists and badgered and beaten down as they try to do their jobs.

The beatdown manifests itself in rising crime and resistance to arrest, anti-cop antagonism, calls for defunding, accusations of racism, vilification and worse. Our legal system, which also isn’t racist, found no truth in claims like, “Hands up. Don’t shoot.” Sadly, race hustlers like Al Sharpton and the Black Lives Matter founders have weaponized these words to further an agenda that doesn’t help the people they claim to champion. They seem more interested in self-enrichment and political change than in equality.

The revolution

The Black Lives Matter grifters value equity over equality and revolution in place of our republic. Black “victims” of police racism and brutality are mere pawns in a new race war as the means to their end—a Marxist Utopia. Hatred, chaos and division are their weapons.

Why do we see looters presented as peaceful protesters by corrupt media? Why do young white anarchists participate in BLM protests after police shootings of black suspects and criminals? It’s opportunity.

What better way to usher in a new reality than with a new revolution? America rebelled against an English tyrant because of inequities involving class and representation. Because America was built on visions of equality, freedom and the merits of hard work and opportunity, class warfare has no legs here. Race is the ticket. Marxists tried it in the ’60s, but were thwarted by reform. Inadvertently, an entire ethnic group in America were turned into victims and semi-wards of the state.

The result? Critical Race Theory, white privilege, reparations, the vilification of police, and reverse racism. The racist oppressors are our justice system and law enforcement. According to the revolutionaries, slavery is our original sin, and we have yet to fully repent of it.

In reality, we’ve made great steps toward equality. America is like any other republic—flawed and imperfect. America is also a beautiful experiment in self-governance. Rather than transform it, we should hold one another responsible for our choices and encourage each other toward unity and true equality.

World-changers: Democrat’s brave new world is neither brave nor new

world

On the cusp of Joe Biden’s White House win and with Georgia and his party’s control of the Senate on his mind, Chuck Schumer crowed, “Now we take Georgia, then we change the world!”

First things first. Before Democrats change the world, they have to change America.

Basking in world-changing fervor, House Democrats passed the “Equality Act,” which they say will help end discrimination against LGBQT and transgender Americans. If passed in the Senate and signed into law by the president, the Equality Act would promote subjective biological truth and feelings-over-facts mythology.

The Equality Act would:

1) Add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes under federal civil rights law. Democrats insist that the bill doesn’t expand existing civil rights law; it merely clarifies it. Truth: Any time the federal government creates a law, it doesn’t clarify diddly—it complicates and adds more control over our lives.

2) Make dissenting Americans vulnerable for their beliefs about marriage and biological sex. The Equality Act broadens “discrimination” to mean much more than unjust or prejudicial treatment based on race or gender. It’s now discriminatory to disagree with the construct that there are more than two genders and that we’re not born into one (or more)—we choose who we are.

3) Pressure employers and workers to conform to new sexual norms or risk civil and federal lawsuits. Remember the baker who refused to make a cake for two gay men and their wedding? After months of litigation, legal costs and lost revenue, he won his battle, but lost his livelihood.

4) Force hospitals and insurers to provide and pay for gender conversion “therapy” regardless of moral or medical objections. Imagine the pressure on a surgeon faced with performing an irreversible gender reassignment that runs counter to his or her medical judgment or moral beliefs.

5) Harm families by normalizing hormonal and surgical intervention for gender dysphoric children—even though 80-95 percent cease to feel troubled about their bodies and gender after puberty. Naturally, parents who encourage their kids to give their changeable feelings time to resolve will likely face false accusations of child abuse or worse.

World changers: Act II

Hot on the heels of the misguided Equality Act, is a new and possibly more dangerous one—the “For the People Act of 2021.” For which people? A good portion of half the American people do not trust the result of the 2020 presidential election.

Millions think the party in power used a pandemic to tilt an election. Will the For the People Act of 2021 help restore their trust in free and fair elections? Let’s see:

It would expand mail-in voting, allow inflation of voter rolls (which would likely include dead people), complicate voter verification, enhance voter irregularities and create many other snafus. In short, it would make what many think happened in the 2020 election business as usual.

If signed into law, the For the People Act would pave the way for one-party rule reminiscent of pseudo-democracies and autocracies like Russia.

If perpetual power and election domination is the goal, the For the People Act of 2021 fits the bill. After all, how can Democrats change the world when they lose power every 2-4 years? Logically, the party that keeps power deserves power.

Specifically, the For the People Act of 2021 would:

1) Federalize elections by imposing unconstitutional mandates on states while wresting authority from them to regulate voter registration and process. Further, it would force states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.

2) Make it more difficult to ensure accuracy at the polls by requiring same-day voter registration. If a person registers and is ready to vote, how can election officials possibly have enough time to verify the accuracy of their registration information and eligibility?

3) Reduce election-day turnout and damage voter morale through 15 days of mandated early voting. This could demoralize those working in get-out-the-vote efforts. It would rob early voters of the information available to Election Day voters. Late-breaking developments can be game changers and can alter voter choice. Information is an essential element of our voting rights and many would be denied it.

4) Degrade registration accuracy by requiring states to automatically register virtually everyone—citizens or not. States would be forced to use lists containing driver’s licensees, those with criminal records, and non-citizens registered for welfare and social security, Medicare and Medicaid. This would create multiple and duplicate registrations and place the burden of determining domiciles on states rather than on voters.

5) Provide opportunities for massive voter registration fraud by hackers and cyber criminals through online voter registration that is not tied to driver’s licenses or other state records. It would make it a criminal offense for a state official to reject a voter registration application even when the official lawfully believes the person is ineligible to vote. It would also require states to allow 16-year-olds to register.

6) Ban state voter ID laws. This inexplicable and unconstitutional overreach would force states to allow people to vote without an ID and by merely signing a statement claiming they are who they say they are. This requirement would allow any and all—underage, ineligible or illegal—to vote with impunity.

World-class marketing

The Equality Act and the For the People Act of 2021 are built on straw men. One is constructed on the claim that LGBQT folks don’t enjoy the same rights as all Americans, the other on the nonsensical and unsupportable claim that voter ID laws are racist.

The party in power are experts in wordplay. By using words like “equality” and phrases like “For the People” when naming House bills, Democrats hide their ideology behind smart marketing.

Consider the Equality Act. Equality. The word soars. It’s majestic in its magnanimity. It trumpets fair-mindedness, tolerance and inclusivity. In a nation of equality, no one’s left behind. Notice the Equality Act’s central theme—discrimination.

Discrimination has become a dirty word. However, we discriminate in a myriad of ways every single day. We watch the shows we like and ignore the ones we don’t. We eat our favorite foods and pass on our not so favorite ones. We scroll past what doesn’t interest us on this Website and click on what does.

We all discriminate, but are we guilty of discrimination by rejecting the party in power’s ideology regarding gender and sexuality? Absolutely not. Disagreement is not discrimination in the way they define it or in any other way.

Neither brave nor new

Chuck Schumer and company’s vision for the world starting with America isn’t brave or new. Brave lawmaking puts country over party and national identity over ideology. Legislation like the Equality Act and the For the People Act of 2021 is just gussied-up socialism lite.

In truth, the Democrats world-changing dreams amount to nothing more than trying to catch up to European nations. As King Solomon observed: There’s nothing new under the sun. And there’s nothing brave about giving in to the spirit of the age. Virtually everything his party is pushing in 2021, President Joe Biden would’ve likely rejected as a senator in 1980 or 1990 or even 2000.

A truly brave new world would be one of honesty regarding truth and respect involving each other. Passing bills that counter science and morality and damage one of most basic American freedoms—the vote—make us look not like world changers, but like we’ve been changed by the world.

We can and should do better. By rejecting truth and morality regarding gender and sexuality and endangering Americans who hold traditional views that run counter to their ideology, Democrats are alienating, not unifying, most Americans.

World-changing American greatness was built on right beliefs rooted in godly truths. Democrats could very well change the world, but not for the better. Changing the world for good starts with telling the truth. It’s also the only way to true freedom. “And you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” ~Jesus