A lot of people nowadays take an interest in Norse mythology. Many first acquainted themselves with the topic through J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. But upon closer look, this work of fiction has absolutely nothing to do with the myths of the old Norsemen. LOTR is, in fact, a woke atheist’s reckoning with European religion.
People who take LOTR for what they think it is—the alleged heathen lore of the Northern Europeans—may be shocked to find out Tolkien’s fantasy world is quite the opposite of the life described in the Icelandic sagas or in other extant sources of Norse literature, such as the Eddas. The Eddic manuscripts at least contain some genuine heathen mythology, and that is despite their Catholic authors’ attempts at rewriting /our history/.
For instance, when we read in the poetic Edda of the coming Ragnarök, the time when the fate of the gods is decided upon, we are reading Christian lore meant to help put an end to the polytheistic worship of Odin, Thor, Freya, and the other Aesir gods in favor of the new One God of Christianity. Lord of the Rings simply takes matters one step further by casting the one ring that rules them all into the fire from which it came, destroying the belief in God altogether.
LOTR, then, is about the victory of scientific atheism over both polytheism and monotheism.
The popularity of the Lord of the Rings trilogy among our ring-wing scene has always baffled me. J.R.R. Tolkien’s work may perhaps borrow the landscape and some of the names of the North—such as the dwarf named Gandalf from the Eddas— but at the heart of Middle Earth lie only messages of moving Judeo-Christianity closer to atheism, of a peculiar Middle-Eastern hatred of the men of the North, of anti-Nordicism, and of matriarchy and domesticated men.
There’s just so much wrong with LOTR. On a deeply psychological level, the franchise has been surgically effective at warping European men’s minds. The film takes the reader on a journey from the perspective of children, the Hobbits. Gandalf, at first, plays the role of good father to Bilbo and Frodo, and he plays the bad father to Peregrin Took, whom he often threatens to kill or otherwise wishes him dead for Took’s fuck-ups.
Whatever childhood you’ve had, there’s something in LOTR for you to identify yourself with. And that is a big part of the scam. You’re being led to the slaughterhouse by having your emotions played.
In Peter Jackson’s cinematic rendition, in the first installment, The Fellowship of the Ring, the relations between the leading characters are mostly male, since straight adult couples hardly appear. The elven women Arwen and Galadriel pose as supreme female beings, as older sisters or grandmothers, but not as sexual interests yet, whereas Aragorn and Boromir, Frodo and Sam, and perhaps even Legolas and Gimli can’t stop looking at each other.
Though Peter Jackson made Arwen’s and Aragorn’s love story central to the film, it isn’t really part of the book. Either way, it’s just messed up. None of the sexlessness we find in LOTR exists in Norse mythology. In one of the sagas, the god Odin dresses up as a sailor and has a threesome with Thor’s wife Sif and her sister, whereas the goddess Freya is known for sleeping around with mostly anyone she can find in Asgard.
That doesn’t mean the Norsemen didn’t have morals—they did, and they used the gods as examples of how not to behave. But Lord of the Rings wasn’t designed for adult audiences, rather for teenage boys. Mature sexuality would have broken the spell. Basically, anyone who’s fallen for the psychological sham that is LOTR and now considers themselves a right-wing heathen might as well start calling themselves soy-boys.
What do the rings in Lord of the Rings even stand for? In ancient Northern Europe, the rings stood for cattle. Yes, people used to measure their wealth by the number of cattle they owned. And later, when people started moving into towns and cities, people sold their cattle for gold and silver, and wore the proceeds as rings around their fingers or wrists.
Thus, the rings worn by Germanic peoples used to represent private property. In LOTR, the rings also represent a religious belief in gods. The rings represent polytheism. The one master ring represents monotheism, European Christianity. The destruction of this one ring, i.e., the destruction of Christianity, represents the arrival of the age of atheism.
And that is the whole point of Tolkien’s work—to erase European Christianity and promote atheism.
Now note the order of proximity to atheism—three rings for the elves, seven for the dwarves, nine for the humans. This suggests Tolkien believed humans ranked below the dwarves, and Hobbits, who have the one ring of power, rank even above the elves. In Norse mythology, the dwarves are below the humans. Whence this reversal of class hierarchy?
And why does a Hobbit receive the one ring to rule them all? Because children don’t yet believe in God. In Tolkien’s world, the childlike creatures of Hobbiton are immune to religion as well as to notions of private property. Children, then, must pave the way toward the age of atheism, for “where our hearts truly lie is in peace and quiet,” say the domesticated halflings.
The message is: People should be more like Hobbits, childlike sheeple more easily controlled by our globalist domesticators.
Often, the opening scenes of Hollywood movies will give viewers the key to understanding the rest of the film. So, pay attention, then. The Fellowship of the ring starts with a female narrator, I presume it’s Galadriel, the Lady of Light (or of the Enlightenment?), describing what she feels “in the water, in the earth, in the air.” She speaks with a sensual voice intended for children’s bedtime stories. And then we cut to a ring being forged in fire.
Do you not see? Water, earth, wind, and fire. In classical Hebrew or Hassidic thought, from the book of Tanya, these four elements represent elements of the soul. Fire stands for hate and greed, and as the saying goes, men must fight fire with fire, so the one ring Sauron forged in the fires of hate must then be destroyed by those same fires.
Peter Jackson has the narrator say: “Nine rings were given to the race of men who above all else, desire power.” Ha! Those evil shitty white men and their desire for power! They’re just being greedy, because they like to hold on to their private property and their traditions. Just let it go, and throw your evil culture away.
Note that Galadriel, the Lady of Light, is later tempted by the ring, but she successfully resists, hinting that women and children are not swayed by power and greed, only men are. Where have we heard that line of thought before? It’s elementary feminism.
LOTR is about fighting the hate and greed in men—but only from the domesticating Hebrew perspective. Men who care for living in their own nations, with their own people, and who would defend their women and children, are seen as evil. Men with such fiery characters that they would fight for their people’s freedom, such as the orcs, the goblins, Saruman, and Sauron, the so-called bad guys, are considered ‘mentally ill’. If only the evil men—for they’re all men, and no women—bettered their ways, then there’d never be war again.
So here, right at the start, we’re just five seconds in, we’ve got the whole plot: Someone immune to greed must bring the ring of hate back to its source in order to destroy it. That’s it. That’s the whole plot. The bad men fight for their freedom, whereas the good ones listen to mommy Galadriel. Stop being greedy, give up private property. Stop being angry, give up your religion.
The opening scene further informs the viewer we are not going to watch anything to do with Norse mythology, but rather with a story about the domestication of Northern Europeans’ wilder hearts. It’s about the victory of naïve hobbits over evil men, the eradication of all things conservative or traditional.
Call me crazy, but at this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if the American CIA funded J.R.R. Tolkien’s studies after World War II, namely to help erase any last memory of actual Germanic mythology. Lord of the Rings is only Northern in appearance, but at the heart of the story lies a shire full of progressive lore.
It’s interesting that the narrator also says the “Ring of power … has a will of its own.” Yes, having free will, as opposed to seeing oneself as a mindless gear, is the foundation of freedom. Without a free will, you cannot live free; but with a free will, you cannot be domesticated.
In conclusion, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is not an modern expansion of Norse mythology but rather a handbook of how men of the North ought to be stripped from their religious beliefs in order for an atheist matriarchy to establish itself in all of Middle Earth. In other words, it’s about globalism.
The best thing anyone can do with this trilogy is to cast the books into a fire.