36
Lord of the Rings is not reactionary
(www.reddit.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
36 points (97.4% liked)
chapotraphouse
13951 readers
788 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh I get what youre saying now. I misread your initial post. You meant as strider he was king of nothing and is still king. Gotcha. I thought you were just calling him that and like middle earth was basically a nothing kingdom post lotr
Yeah, that encapsulates the anarcho monarchist vibes perfectly you know
I still don't think I get where youre coming from in regards to Aragorn. Could you explain in your own words? I've got some guesses but they all fall kinda flat
King is a job title right? LotR implies that when Aragon was just foraging in the woods living in the woods he was still a king. The anarcho monarchies is that his relationship to a kingdom does not dictate his status
Okay that's what I thought you meant on a second read but was wrong on the first. Its maybe even elss anarcho monarchies than wanting an anarchists monarch