Why are so wizards anarchistic in spirit?

Tolkien himself was an anarchist.

More despotic than anything. They don't have the tendency towards mass-movements or collective governance that anarchists do. Stirner, it's worth noting never used the term anarchist and never advocated a political platform; his philosophy was later appropriated by anarchists (and not necessarily wrongly) but wasn't itself anarchism.

Magic words are the furthest things from spooks. Striner learned that the hard way.

Because Wizards are willfully delusional.

spooky

Gandalf and Elrond spent several centuries grooming the remains of Numenor to suit them before enthroning their chosen heir and setting him up with Arwen to rekindle the potency of the Numenorean royal blood on precisely their terms.

This isn't even a conspiracy, Elrond, brother of the king of Numenor, etc., has the strongest claim to being rightful High King of middle earth, short of a challenge from Celebrimbor's deluded ghost or Gil-Galad's charred corpse, or an intercession from Elrond's mother in law. King of Gondor is barely even a side bonus to being wed to the heir of the Halfelven line, and then Elrond abdicates and leaves his chosen heir to run things.

is there a spook so spooky not even stirner could bust it?

Egoism?

By definition, it can't be. An idea only becomes a spoke when you attempt to put it ahead of yourself, you can't put yourself ahead of yourself.

There are several conceptions of egoism that could be spooks (Randian egoism for instance) but those aren't just the simple concept of egoism.

...

Actual Nihilism, you must actually kill yourself.

>if you don't have a telos you have to kill yourself!
lolno

Side effects of the fumes from the lab.

tolkien openly supported franco over the republicans

Implicit threats of violence

a lot of anarchists and anarchic-leaning people prefer dictatorships to democracies

The Republicans were very anti-Catholic as I recall.

And I was only half right, Tolkien considered himself either an anarchist or an absolute monarchist. Personally I'd just jot it down to his opinions on politics lacking nuance.

You get a decently clear and nuanced picture of how he sees monarchy and anarchism interact, with the status of gentry in the shire and the course of providence/history for Numenor and the elven Kings. Essentially to get a semi-coherent intellectual vision out of tolkien's work you have to take it not as a fantasy fiction or even a world building or linguistic exercise, but as a really self conscious exercise in fictional historiography. Tolkien knew he was reacting to his experiences in the 20th century and writing them into his fiction, from WW1 to falling in love with his wife, even writing his stories, and translates that into a synthesis of western epic tradition into a novel piece of epic literature. He is to the closeing years of the British empire what Thyucides was in the Delian league, Ovid as Augustus solidified the Roman Empire, Dante in Florence, etc.

You're reading too much into it. The politics of Lord of the Rings are simplistic at best, outright idiotic at worst. It's a simple fantasy story with simple, fundamentally escapist themes and no intended deeper meaning.

> anarchist or an absolute monarchist. >implying these are incompatible, or at least father apart than they are far from modern bureaucracy

It's your opinion lacking nuance, user. The idea of a shared culture of minarchists tending to their own cottages in peace is a long-standing Catholic meme.

Right and wrong

There is deeper meaning but it's LITERARY meaning, of value to those interested in etymology and norse mythology and monotheism

The political 'meaning' or 'message' anyone sees in LotR is just readers projecting their own political shit onto it.

>no gods no masters!
>except this one guy who gets absolute power over everything

Yeah, totally compatible.

they aren't, they're just structuralist to a higher order that nonwizards don't understand

I disagree, its synthesis of classical epic tradition through the lense of the modern reception of that tradition, particularly through the english "classical education". Its fundamentally bucolic and escapist, and he knows that as he writes, but its in reaction to tolkien's life, the mechanization of war and industrialization of english society, etc. Its not an allegory, its exactly what it is, an english history professor's very self aware daydreams that comingle a comprehensive knowledge of epic tradition with his own modern experience and recoil from the same.

Tolkien went out of his way not to include the details of political machinations and periods of intrigue set in his fictional history out of stated personal distaste, and romanticises the bucolic and royal for the dignity and mutuality of honor. All of that can be put in really great contrast to the situation that started the great war, likewise with interlocking loyalties and kingdoms calling for aid.

I'm not saying that creating a piece of prose that properly interlocks into the western epic tradition is some superlative form of writing, just one that takes lots of interlocution with the classical canon, and one that's qualitatively different from writing a fantasy novel in the style of Conan. In fact its pretty fundamentally limiting in a lot of ways, and is has a tendency to swing reactionary and escapist in actual styling, and in general need a historiographic lense to really enjoy. Epics aren't Novels, and tend to be long rambling stories more about demonstrating ideals and interpretation of history than they are about exploring novel concepts or stories in original and incisive ways.

Lord of The Ring's depiction of medieval politics is simplistic at best and the conflicts straightforward because Tolkien was a man that knew it not to be so in reality, and fought in a murky war with callus industrial horror on all sides, brought on by byzantine politics and selfish intrigues.

>The political 'meaning' or 'message' anyone sees in LotR is just readers projecting their own political shit onto it.
I don't think its even projection that makes it so malleable, its projection combined with a truism extracted from the western literary tradition. That if the Philosopher King was assuredly good, fair, with a good, dignified wife and the assurance of a long line of stable, just heirs, everyone would agree to absolute monarchy, and it would hardly be any different than anarchism. He pulls together the great christian and pagan themes into the mythology or history we might have had if we really were the people in the stories like Beowulf or The Aeneid, with wise monarchs that reign for centuries, and puts it together in notes on readily dismissed daydreams, in a style that is as quintessentially Oxford professor as Virgil was a Roman poet.

The achievement isn't that he articulated some revolutionary new thought on power, instead it was an evaluation and comprehension of the long history of epic stories of conflict that built upon each other into the modern era, shaping our understanding of war and loss. Then he tries to write his version in his way for his era, and through the pervasive influence of his work we see how it is just barely beginning to be respond to and shape the cultural recollection of the time.

In short, the achievement is that while the Maxim gun was invented by an englishman and nestled on both sides of the trenches, the cultural feeling seems to be that it, like barbed wire, was an invention of an orc, and the ghost of sauron's industrialised will can become a gloss for the source of those horrors, to understand them apart from the men behind the guns muttering about how war is hell. It's using the power of mythologizing and oral/epic tradition to give a name to the things that otherwise become ineffable, or mere statistics.

>oral tradition
Heh.

You spend enough time secluded from society learning how to murder a mid-sized humanoid with a wave of your hands, some pig latin, and a handful of pigshit and you might find yourself wondering why you ever really respected people other people in the first place.

Well they certainly don't care about the laws of nature.

any examples of a wizard who believes in the power of law, and uses his power to maintain law and order, and really hates the idea of society falling into dissarray?

bonus points: he does so in a reasonable manner and does not turn into a control freak or tyrant

Khelben Blackstaff depending on your definition of "reasonable"

He was basically the Blackbag CIA of FR

Power is all that matters. When someone without it starts to try and tell you what to do one thing leads to another. Though I think it's more accurate to say most wizards are isolationists who'd rather just be left alone.

...

Left is the more lethal one.

It's simple. The more innately gifted someone is, the less they are needs are met from society. Society is a way for people with different simple skill sets to provide for eachother through which skills they DO have. However, Wizards are gifted to the point of not depending on society except for mundane things, and as such do not see the necessity of order like most common folk do. This tends to make them embrace anarchism: or, a world in which they can be the most free, and the most powerful.

Are you commenting on trends or the image depiction? Authoritarian leftists are tankies and Hoppeans are depicted in helocopter because Pinochet was dropping communists out of them. The vehicles are just images to encapsulate radical politics famous russian tank and US surplus transport helocopter turned physical removal tool.