Orcs in the Shire: why the Establishment hates nuanced discussion of immigration and Islam
The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien, on first perusal, presents itself a fascinating prospect for the discovery of a particular paradigm-confirming esoteric meaning – which presumably has never been properly achieved given what some of the symbolism preliminarily points to (to be discussed in full another time), and because Tolkien’s own denial of the use of allegory very likely puts many off the scent. However, the “Shire” that features centrally in the work – the homeland of the Hobbit characters – will not have a universally appreciated association with England, as it does, purely by osmosis: there will be literary devices that suggest the representation. One is the common traits of the Hobbit; the characteristics shared nationally: not actually, man for man, an adventurer into the world, or an Empire builder (this is the stuff of remarkable Hobbits, of which there are relatively few), but a home-body, devoid of any sign of the war-born nobility that the men of Gondor and Rohan are all, without exception (improbably) imbued with. Hobbits are mean and stupid, and the most overt example of these traits on display was given through the conduct of the invitees to Bilbo’s one hundred and eleventh (111th) birthday party. Other demonstrations are more subtle:
All Hobbits were, in any case, clannish and reckoned up their relationships with great care. They drew long and elaborate family-trees with innumerable branches. In dealing with Hobbits it is important to remember who is related to whom, and in what degree. It would be impossible in this book to set out a family-tree that included even the more important members of the more important families at the time which these tales tell of. The genealogical trees at the end of the Red Book of Westmarch are a small book in themselves, and all but Hobbits would find them exceedingly dull. Hobbits delighted in such things, if they were accurate: they liked to have books filled with things that they already knew, set out fair and square with no contradictions.
Ostensibly, the observation that Hobbits like – or can only tolerate – that which they already know is about a relationship with data pertaining to genealogies – but why would it not apply to all information that might come to a Hobbit’s attention? Proof that this is indeed the case is provided in at least one other place in the book: a scene which finds Samwise Gamgee in debate with other patrons of a public house regarding the possibility of things existing beyond the ken of Hobbits:
Well I don’t know,’ said Sam thoughtfully. He believed he had once seen an Elf in the woods, and still hoped to see more one day. Of all the legends that he had heard in his early years such fragments of tales and half-remembered stories about the Elves as the hobbits knew, had always moved him most deeply. ‘There are some, even in these parts, as know the Fair Folk and get news of them,’ he said. ‘There’s Mr. Baggins now, that I work for. He told me that they were sailing and he knows a bit about Elves. And old Mr. Bilbo knew more: many’s (sic) the talk I had with him when I was a little lad.’
‘Oh, they’re both cracked,’ said Ted. ‘Leastways old Bilbo was cracked, and Frodo’s cracking. If that’s where you get your news from, you’ll never want for moonshine. Well, friends, I’m off home. Your good health!’ He drained his mug and went out noisily.
Ted Sandyman had previously been “scoring points” against Sam – something that could be gauged from listeners to their exchanges who received the former’s ridiculing put-downs with much approval. Thus, it is the view of the majority of Hobbits that a know-nothing-know-it-all is more of an authority than a source who has actually ventured forth into the wider world: evidently, Bilbo was mistaken because he was mad.
The reader of FBEL should have realised the point to which this is all leading at the moment when Sandyman made a jibe about a source of news implicating its consumer in a depreciatory fashion: yes, Sandyman uses the conspiracy theorist smear to marginalise the information, and its conveyor, that he doesn’t like because he doesn’t know it to be true. This is indeed a portrayal of the English, or indeed the British, executed, significantly, at a time when they were in the clutches, already, of the authoritative voice, and purveyor of the unquestionable orthodoxy in all things current affairs, that is the British Broadcasting Company: the writing of The Lord of the Rings was largely a wartime project. However, the tendency to unthinkingly accept reality as it is described by a figure appealing to authority is still undiminished in the Briton, and in these days, when one ventures into the wide world of information, and identifies self-perpetrated provocations as state craft, and lays out the entrails of a case of provocateuring for a Hegelian outcome according to an agenda desired by Government, and catalogues systems for social control and the long-held purpose that motivates the implementation of maintenance of hegemony – enabling fairly accurate prediction of certain current events to come – then inevitably one will encounter a Sandyman of the internet, armed with nought but the Ten O’Clock News, and the conviction he knows what he knows to be true, who will determine that the information is moonshine with applause from the galleries.
Know-it-all-know-nothingism is endemic – and is an obvious problem, especially if it occurs in the avenues that are supposed to serve as conduits around centrally dictated direction of information. For instance, English language alternative media, by and large, and when it isn’t controlled opposition in itself, undoubtedly has a “Leftist” bent – thus being an unwitting instrument for that system that it claims to be beyond. The perspective that drives a denouncement of capitalism and a belief in socialism as a solution to all the ills of Globalism (as one generally sees in this sphere of media) is legacy from the authoritative voice, and doesn’t understand that it is a socialist – the term that would apply to a government that nationalises and thus takes business and industry out of private hands – who monopolises the capital (the workforce included). Capitalism equals a matrix of capitalists. Socialism equals a capital owner, and his capital.
The single most problematic aspect of British wilful ignorance (because that is what it is) is the fear and loathing of Islam, which, after the British Government (in its broadest sense) perpetrated false flag terror and attributed it to the adherents of that religion, is used as the volatile substance to agitate to create social tension and fake problems that must be solved by heavy-handed government. We are seeing, right now, the use of the Islamic bogeyman, as Government mobilises “far-right” assets, infamous in their reaction to Islam (not least having been accused of fomenting (false flag) retaliatory terror attacks against Muslims), to smear Brexit as a racist project.
Moreover, the British Government is completely in control of the negative perception of Islam, having allowed and fostered the establishment and growth of particular interpretations of the religion within the UK for the express purpose of creating a source for controversy. What is more, Islam-hating Britons are never disabused of an imagined unified conglomerate hell-bent on taking over Western society, imposing sharia, while “dhimmi” government is too frightened to act to prevent it. This idea is 100% contrary to reality. There are interpretations of Islam – there is more than one sharia mostly due, as the author understands it, to authority permitted to designated Shia imams “to determine points of law and ritual” so that, crucially, “Shia… was in a position to develop an interpretation of Islam very different from that of Sunnism [with the importance it placed on the ideas set out by first generation Islam]†. Following this lead, we notice that while the Muslims who fight as mercenaries for the British in Syria might resemble adherents to a “death cult”, those who fight in the Syrian Arab Army on behalf of the country’s Christians (and caring for Syrian Christian culture as their own) definitely cannot be said to do the same. The divide would perhaps reflect support and submersion in versus opposition and rejection of the Syrian constitution, which has defended other religious communities in the modern state of Syria from that tendency in Islam to be overly concerned that all are of the faith – which comes from interpretation. Thus, Syria’s secular laws, which are yet based on sharia, work to frustrate all those aspects of Islam that British Muslim-haters are so very afraid of: we note that Syria’s modern government has been dominated by Shia Alawites.
The difference between Syria – a Muslim country – and the Saudi Arabian Islamic theocracy, where the official religion is Sunni of the (Wahhabi-Salafist reformed) Hanbali school (one of the four Sunni philosophies from whence a sharia has been derived) even goes so far that, while in Saudi Arabia, a citizen must be a Muslim, the Russian-proposed new constitution – which Assad has indicated willing for – retires Islamic legal jurisprudence entirely. And so it becomes clear that government, with its monopoly of force, can stymie the Islamic tendency to exert a perceived supremacy if it so desires. Indeed, government can do the same against any political movement irrespective of any religion (or none) that it stems from. And if a government that principally rules by sharia can guarantee individual liberties from the worst of Islam, then there is no realistic prospect of sharia ever replacing the English common law as the basis of the British legal system, as many opponents of Islam imagine is going to happen. The only way it could happen is if the British Government institutes it (which would be much too much of a controversial thing to do).
Be that as it may, the British Government still goes so far as to create a strategy of tension by not suppressing those interpretations of Islam in a land where they are not civilisationally compatible – for instance, those out of Saudi Arabia; people have a natural reaction to the subsequent shattering of cultural unity, and this gives way to the perception of manifest danger to the social fabric, and to long-held traditions – to then be worked upon by agitators amongst the native population. Central to such a scheme of deliberate tension-stoking is the truth that any immigration that causes cultural instability is not conducive to the functioning of a country. The babelisation of a nation leads to breakdown through inability to communicate efficiently if at all; this much is self-evident. And when a nation offers unlimited access from across the globe to a welfare state, then there is a problem of finite resources, tending to the impoverishment of the tax-payer, leading to resentment from those who are stolen from to pay for the lifestyle gratis, and those originally of the country whose safety net is stretched even thinner [compare this to what would be a necessity in a capitalist system for an immigrant to be able to buy his way into a country – a situation which does not cause resentment from the population already present].
So, it should be obvious to any conscious human being that there are credible, laudable criticisms to be had of immigration, and race and cultural relations, and Nigel Farage, when he resigned from UKIP, spoke of having been able to dig this subject matter out of the discussional cesspit where it had been cunningly placed by the Establishment so that anyone taking part in the discourse would always run the gauntlet of having muck aimed at them. Farage pointed out that UKIP’s new found intention to be prejudiced against all Muslims for the fault of a few (with the fault promoted by British Government) undoes the work that he felt he had done in unchaining the topic from political correct devices to shut down debate (from the visible portion of a Telegraph premium piece):
At the Annual Ukip Conference held this year in Birmingham, I spoke at the Gala dinner. My message was very simple: one of the reasons for Ukip’s success was that we’d excluded extremists and focused on organising and fighting elections. I warned that any change to this policy would damage the party beyond repair.
As I walked back to my seat, I was met by several angry young men, red in the face and mildly abusive, who all seemed to be obsessed with Islam and Tommy Robinson.
I wondered at that time if I’d just given my last Ukip speech.
As we have discovered, at the heart of the issue is how a wilful ignorance regarding Islam ignores that part which is culturally compatible – not least through extra-religious exposure experienced by some Muslims through historical relation to Britain.
We should notice that certain elements of the corporate-media did not like Farage – and now many other MEPs – leaving UKIP to uphold a practice where Islam can be treated with nuance. Indeed, FBEL predicted that “Government… would ideally like moderate voices to stay in the UKIP trap: this project is no longer just about destroying that party, it is also about having one large portion of the populace (that part which wants full withdrawal from the EU) in one place to more easily demonise their political ambition”. Unsurprisingly, a number of article writers coming out of the “left” field of the control grid have duly identified Farage’s previous dealing with immigration as “dog whistling”, meaning that it only appears to be respectable, or it appears to be based on economics or culture, but it hides objection to immigration on racial grounds. This sort of stuff is contemptible – and an aspect of the great false flag that Government perpetrates regarding immigration as Hegelian thesis, racism as anti-thesis, and the restriction of freedom of speech (amongst other consequences) as synthesis. What it amounts to is trying to prevent the nut being taken off the bolt by calling the spanner a banana, and raising indignation at the inappropriateness to such an extent that the mechanic puts his tool down and backs away. Notice, in the following extracts, that racism is conflated with a concern for the loss of cultural unity:
What Farage really means is that the bigotry the party is peddling is no longer “respectable”. New Labour and the Tories both engaged in migrant-bashing politics – for years Farage could outflank them, and still claim to be a legitimate voice. When immigrants alone can no longer provide a (false) explanation for hardship and inequality (EU free movement is going to end, but wages are stagnant and living conditions won’t improve), another minority group must be found to point the finger at.
(Source).
Farage’s political success was in winning over not just the votes of far-right parties like the BNP but in pulling over supporters of the Conservative and Labour parties who had similar attitudes to BNP voters but would not vote for an explicitly racist party. He was – for the most part – able to instead offer an implicit message about immigration and people from abroad.
(Source).
Keenly may we feel Nigel Farage’s anguish at all this for he spent many years dog-whistling prejudices that his successor simply booms out. Farage was a skilled injector of poison. He talked around rather than about race, lamenting how ‘in scores of our cities and market towns, this country in a short space of time has frankly become unrecognisable’ and describing a rush-hour train journey from Charing Cross in which ‘it wasn’t until after we got past Grove Park that I could actually hear English being audibly spoken in the carriage’.
(Source).
Of course the reason that so-called journalists can deceive their audience in the ways in plain evidence above is due to the phenomenon discussed at the top of this article: Britons like to see what they already knew. As such, after they have established their own expertise, they cannot entertain ideas to the contrary. Given that the majority, since their school days, have been inculcated by conditioning to encourage servility to their socialist overlords, means that they will always be at the mercy of charlatans in the corporate-media who create current affairs and reaction strictly for the benefit of the hegemony. And this brings us to a tying-together of two threads that have run through this piece: the scouring of the shire (that chapter of Hobbit history which Peter Jackson tellingly omitted from his films). In The Lord of the Rings, the homeland of the Hobbits suffers immigration of half-orcs, and human vagabonds – all lackeys of “Sharkey”, or Saruman. The socialisation of the country then commences to benefit this new overlord, and government is implemented, by force, where once there was no such thing. The epitome of this change is the knocking down of the mill owned by the Sandyman family – proving that realities will come home to roost in the harshest possible way irrespective of their being denied. With milling at the site under the new ownership of the Chief, Sandyman is no longer his own man, but works for government: is, himself, capital owned by government. Saruman in the Shire is a metaphor for a new political idea that uses immigration to make the new order work; while what has happened in the UK since 1997 is a slightly different variation on the theme, it still boils down to the same thing: immigration to socialise the already present inhabitants. Open borders equates to power for an elite, and this is why minions in corporate-media vilify those who would explain the implications of immigration. At FBEL, Farage is not an entirely trusted quantity, but what he, and other high profile UKIP people have done by putting distance between themselves and the party that is about to be fully mired in controversy (especially those who were brave enough to leave prior to Farage’s departure) is maintain scope for nuanced discussion of immigration within the corporate-media’s field of coverage [at its broadest possible extent, for it prefers to omit what is not conducive to its agenda]. Corporate-media and through it Government, however, may still try to compensate for what has clearly been a failed attempt to shut down debate through the degeneration of UKIP – and it can do so through its monopoly on the wilfully ignorant as audience, by asserting “dog whistle” racism as a fact. And yet, unfortunately for it, if there has to be reference in corporate, or indeed ancillary alternative media, to economic or cultural factors while discussing the topic, then this would constitute a failure compunded.
† P8, The Secret Order of Assassins, Marshall G.S. Hodgson
