Hobbit casting director accused of racism

Back when the movie of The Fellowship of the Ring came out in 2001 there was some grumbling on the left over the fact that the protagonists were all, well, white. Just like in the book, where Middle-Earth is conceived as a mythological northern Europe bathed in Nordic/Celtic twilight. The left wanted the characters of Middle-Earth to be a racially diverse mix, sort of like the space-age Danish court in Kenneth Brannagh’s 1997 movie of Hamlet. But Peter Jackson, notwithstanding his liberalism and his flaws as a director, was set on creating a cinematic equivalent of Tolkien’s trilogy, and the PC griping didn’t go anywhere.

Now it has returned, with an ethnic Pakistani actress complaining that she was turned down as an extra for The Hobbit because she is too dark. “It’s 2010 and I still can’t believe I’m being discriminated against because I have brown skin,” she says. Now suppose Pakistan made a movie about the coming of Islam to the subcontinent. Would this same actress demand that the movie cast fair-skinned European actors as Pakistanis, for the sake of diversity and fairness? Would she say that the absence of pale Europeans in such a movie was discriminatory? Somehow I don’t think so. The racism charge is a weapon used solely against whites. And it will continue to be used against them, until they go beyond passively retorting, “I’m not a racist,” and actively attack the entire racism charge as the anti-white lie that it is. Then the anti-white brigades will scatter like orcs before the men of the West.

- end of initial entry -

Amit G. writes:

Hi Lawrebce my good friend. probably tolekin did not know anything about other races while he was lving in his time in Britain. The Pakistanian actress should have been given the role but because Peter jackson was reflecting Tolikein who did not know about other countries that well it has turned into a misunderstanding. In any case all these films will be remade in the fukure and lord of the rings will have a cast to reflect reality when we are all together.

Richard S. writes:

” … the men of the West.”

But do the men of the West exist anymore? I say this not to be clever and contrary. It is actually heartbreaking. To those of us who love the West has there been anything more dispiriting than the evidence on the public stage and in our private lives that people of quality no longer carry “the West” within themselves? That great questing spirit—where is it? Nowhere that I can see. I would go beyond that and say that to the best and the brightest “that great questing spirit,” the romantic urge which drove the West forward for 500 years is a dead letter, worse, an embarrassment. No. It is over. There will only be retreat from now on. Disguising itself as tolerance for all those who would and will tear the West to pieces.

LA replies:

I wasn’t stating this as a prediction but as a conditional statement. If whites begin to stand up for themselves and fight back, then in that very act they will have come into existence again as the men of the West. I agree with you that at present, they do not exist as the men of the West, at least not as a pragmatic actuality. But the potential is there, and it could become actual.

Kilroy M. writes:

I’m assuming Amit G’s reply was satirical. In any case, I will correct one thing: Token’s representations of the orcs was suppose to be a metaphor for Soviet Bolshevism. I remember reading that in an essay about the man somewhere, but for the life of me, cannot remember the source.

LA replies:

This is not the way to approach a work of literature, to reduce the orcs to one thing and say that the orcs simply represent X. That’s not the way literature works. The orcs are, first and foremost, the orcs, existing in their own terms in the novel. Yes, they carry various meanings, and one of them could be the idea of Communist collectivism. But when people construct simple one-on-one correspondences between characters or other components in a work of literature and something in the real world or some abstract idea, and say, “This is what the orcs really are,” so that we stop experiencing the orcs as the orcs, then literature dies.

Thomas Bertonneau writes:

Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings-trilogy aside, many other highly praised films are shockingly deficient in terms of multicultural casting. Perhaps, using computer-generated-imagery, new characters corresponding to the enlightened notion of diversity could be filmed anew and inserted in such shamefully, ethnically homogeneous films as Carl Dreyer’s Passion of Joan of Arc, Sergei Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky, and Ingmar Bergman’s Virgin Spring. Whoopi Goldberg might replace Maria Falconetti in Dreyer’s film; or Jackie Chan could be inserted in Alexander Nevsky as a “hip,” Kung-Fu-style substitute for actor Nikolai Okhlopov’s outmoded “Buslai.”) Has anyone noticed that the Munchkins from The Wizard of Oz (their stature notwithstanding) look like the crowd at a Glenn Beck or Jon Stewart rally? This is an injustice crying out to be righted. I look forward to an updated, heterogeneous version of Brokeback Mountain, which could be intercut, in the form of a postmodern hybrid, with a Pakistani version of Cabin in the Sky. Where are the Hollywood moguls when we need them?

Joel P. writes:

Being a fan of Tolkien and also one who is following the production of the upcoming Hobbit films somewhat closely, I was very much interested in the story you blogged about concerning the Pakistani woman who charged the casting director for the films of “racism” because he said they were only looking for pale-skinned hobbits. After reading your post on the subject, I decided to head over to theonering.net forums to see if the story was being discussed there. Sure enough I found a thread open on the subject. Here’s the comment I left:

This woman, Naz Humphreys, is an anti-white bigot, plain and simple. As we all know, Tolkien wrote these stories as sort of lost mythologies for English beginnings. English people are pale-skinned people, so of course those should be the kind of people representing the ‘Western’ world of Middle Earth.

The only reason this Naz Humphreys is allowed to get away with this kind of nonsense is because she is a non-white minority accusing the white majority of “racism.” If the shoe were on the other foot, if, say, this were a white person accusing Pakistanis of “racism” because they refused to cast him in a film they were making about the mythological origins of Pakistan and her people, every one here would denounce this person in the strongest terms, and rightfully so. But as is almost always the case, white people tend to turn into weak-kneed doormats whenever faced with the charge of “racism,” no matter how reckless and preposterous such a charge may be. As the blogger Lawrence Auster writes:

Now suppose Pakistan made a movie about the coming of Islam to the subcontinent. Would this same actress demand that the movie cast fair-skinned European actors as Pakistanis, for the sake of diversity and fairness? Would she say that the absence of pale Europeans in such a movie was discriminatory? Somehow I don’t think so. The racism charge is a weapon used solely against whites. And it will continue to be used against them, until they go beyond passively retorting, “I’m not a racist,” and actively attack the entire racism charge as the anti-white lie that it is. Then the anti-white brigades will scatter like orcs before the men of the West. [emphasis in bold is mine]

Naz Humphreys is no victim here; she is a race-bating troublemaker, and she deserves no deference or pity. Shame on this spokesman for Peter Jackson capitulating to her. Nevertheless, I hope they stand their ground and don’t give in to these kind of leftist, anti-white smear jobs by casting multi-racial hobbits.

My above comment lasted all but 30 seconds before it was deleted. In my inbox I received the following note from the moderator who axed my post:

I’m afraid I had to delete your post about the racist allegations against the Hobbit casting. As frustrating as it might be, name-calling (i.e., anti-white bigot) is against our terms of service. As you can see, others are also frustrated and/or gobsmacked, but haven’t resorted to name calling which is more in line with the atmosphere we promote here. Feel free to re-word your response and re-post.

To which I replied:

If you aren’t going to allow proper discussion of this story, then do not allow the story to be posted at all. My post was not an exercise in baseless name-calling, as you tried to characterize it, but rather it was an honest and well-reasoned assessment of what I thought was going on. Apparently the instigator of the story is allowed to say whatever she wants, including making very serious charges of “racism” against the makers of the Hobbit films, but any discussion about it on theonering.net forums has to be restricted to agreement with this woman’s charges, or neutered responses such as “I think she overreacted.” Basically, what you’re saying is that you’re not allowed take a principled stand against this woman’s charges, especially if in so doing you describe and condemn the anti-white game she is playing.

I haven’t yet heard back from the moderator.

LA replies:

For them to say that “anti-white bigot” is too strong and is name calling is funny. As you point out, the equivalent language is used about whites all the time, and, indeed, Naz Humphreys is quoted in the article using the word “racism” to describe the movie. Also, Humphreys is not a commenter at the blog where you were writing, but someone in the news that you were discussing. So you were not even arguably name-calling against a fellow commenter.

Kilroy M. writes:

Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my post. I didn’t say that I interpreted the orcs to be Soviet Bolshevism, or that I interpolate this metaphor into Tolkien’s work. I do remember that it was indeed his own intention, as recounted by a colleagues, friend of family member: that he modeled the force represented by the orcs on the historical threat of the period which he saw as animated by a spirit of barbarism. I wish I could remember the source I’m referring to. I’ll try to locate it and will let you know.

LA replies:

I’m sorry I jumped on you on that. But I hate it when people translate something in a work of literature into some idea, so that it just becomes that idea, and stops being a living part of the work of literature. There’s a whole class of intellectuals who do this all the time. For example, 99 percent of Dylan interpretation is of this type, and, in my opinion, is completely worthless for that reason.

Joel P. writes:

According to a New Zealand website, the casting director in question has been fired:

A casting agent who told a would-be extra she was too dark to play a hobbit in Peter Jackson’s latest film has been sacked.

Hobbit wannabe Naz Humphreys, who has Pakistani heritage, drew attention to the agent’s comments after she queued for three hours only to be told her skin tone wasn’t light enough.

“It’s 2010 and I still can’t believe I’m being discriminated against because I have brown skin,” Humphreys said.

“The casting manager basically said they weren’t having anybody who wasn’t pale-skinned.”

The agent, an independent contractor, had also placed a newspaper ad saying female hobbit extras should have “light skin tones”.

A spokesman for Jackson’s Wingnut Films told AFP the contractor had now been dismissed.

“No such instructions were given, the crew member in question took it upon themselves to do that and it’s not something we instructed or condoned,” AFP reported.

In The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien described three races of Hobbits inhabiting the Middle Earth fantasy world which is the setting for the movies, including harfoots, who “were browner of skin” than the others.

However, Wingnut said anyone who met the height and age criteria was free to audition, regardless of skin colour.

“The crew member in question has been dismissed from the show,” he said. “It’s something we take very seriously.”

November 30

Kilroy replies to LA:

I agree with you totally. A classic example is the entire field of feminist “criticism.” They impose their own agenda on the subject to provide some credibility for their own historical worldview. This is circular thinking and very dishonest. The product of this criticism is a reflection almost entirely of the prejudices of the critic, not an analysis of the subject itself. Most people in the audience don’t see this fraud, get fooled, and the product is a debased pop culture where the themes in art become nothing more than struggles for power between the oppressor and the oppressed.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

Kilroy M. may have heard from some place or other that the orcs of Middle Earth are meant to represent the threat of Bolshevist hordes, and no doubt he has no real attachment to the idea, but it’s absolute nonsense. I’m a lifelong Tolkien enthusiast and, as such, I’ve actually read what Tolkien has said on the subject of Lord of the Rings and allegory. Specifically, Tolkien stated in the preface to one of the later editions of The Fellowship of the Ring that he despised allegory in all its forms, and that the story simply was not intended to be an allegorical one, at least not in the simplistic sense that the One Ring “represents” the atomic bomb, or that Sauron’s armies “represent” the threat of Bolshevism. (That is the reason he did not much care for C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, by the way—it was composed of crude and transparent symbols.) Besides, it would be odd in the extreme if Tolkien had modeled the threat of Sauron after an army which never been at open war with Britain—indeed, to spend a lifetime writing about that threat, since the race of the orcs had been the immediate antagonists in Middle Earth for practically as long as he had written about it.

In all the many letters Tolkien later wrote in answer to inquiries on the meaning and background of the story, there is not one suggestion that I know of that the tale, or any part of it, was ever intended by its author to serve as a metaphor for contemporary political figures or events, though countless essayists have endeavored to re-cast The Lord of the Rings as a Cold War morality tale (or an environmentalist ode to man’s tyranny over mother nature, or what have you). These attempts to co-opt the work in the service of passing political fixations greatly vexed the master himself. The Rings trilogy was intended to amuse, delight, and inspire its readers, and if there were deeper themes that moved within the humors of the text, they were not smuggled in as mere symbols by the author. The notion that Tolkien spent a lifetime writing a mythology in which the race of the orcs was an ever-present allegory for the Bolsheviks is ludicrous. It is akin to saying that all of the minor keys in all of Bach’s symphonies were intended to represent sadness.

Again, I do not intend to scold Kilroy, who probably doesn’t much care one way or another. But it’s a subject that is near to me. Tolkien described the work as “thoroughly Catholic,” so Catholic readers often translate it as a vast exercise in apologetics, which it is not. They mistake the Lady Galadriel’s obvious similarities with the Virgin Mary (similarities obvious to Catholics, anyway) to mean that Galadriel is a symbol for the Virgin Mary. This kind of thing does injustice to the story’s depth and its worth as a work of Western literature.

In short, you’re right that there is a reductionist oversimplification going on in contemporary criticism that detracts from a given work much more than it reveals.

Robert B. writes:

“However, Wingnut said anyone who met the height and age criteria was free to audition, regardless of skin colour.”

Okay, Men Of The West, time to stand up and be counted. That means we should start our own boycott of the movie if Peter Jackson capitulates. I for, for one, am not interested in a diversified movie form of The Hobbit. In point of fact, it bothers me immensely that Jackson succumbed to this in the LOTR, in that he used computer generated graphics to make a number the orcs look white when the books clearly state they were black.

Please, let us all take a stand here and now on this issue. I am tired of seeing our art changed for their sake. Denzel Washington’s entire career is made up of movie remakes where he plays the part of a white man. Enough is enough.

Daniel H. writes from Seattle:

It looks like you got quite a bit of mail about your recent entry concerning charges of racism in the casting of Peter Jackson’s new film version of The Hobbit. Some topics are just more fun to talk about; and some evoke the passionate feelings of fandom. The topic of Tolkien probably qualifies under both columns.

First of all, I really wish Kilroy could reproduce his source on orcs and the Soviets. The Lord of the Rings has often been considered an allegory for World War II, because Tolkien composed much of his oeuvre during this time, and because the story involves a titanic, continent-wide struggle involving many different allies and enemies. But he explicitly rejected such comparisons. People have linked the dark lord Sauron to both Hitler and to Stalin, our first clue that some sloppy attribution is going on. And a simple peek at Wikipedia produces this:

Tolkien sharply criticized a Swedish commentator who suggested that The Lord of the Rings was an anti-Communist parable and identified the Dark Lord with Stalin. Tolkien retorted that his Middle-earth legendarium was conceived long before the October Revolution of 1917. He indignantly added, “Such an allegory is entirely foreign to my thought.”

Second, I cannot endorse strongly enough your respectful rebuke of Richard S.’s comment about the disappearance of the “Men of the West.” Has Richard actually read the Lord of the Rings? The entire problem of the West in these books is not that Sauron is too powerful and his minions too awful. It is that the Men (and Elves) of the West have ceased their struggle. The story takes place in the darkest times, when most men are not noble, and those who retain some nobility have pulled within their own (literal and metaphorical) borders. At the darkest possible moment, it is the emergence of the never-say-die heroes who save the day. These people are great and powerful and eternal, like Gandalf and Aragorn. And they are humble, simple and weak, like Sam and Frodo. They are few, and the enemy are many. But their hearts are pure, their courage indefatigable, and their cause is true.

If one does not believe in the power of a few humble souls, speaking truth and love, to overcome evil, then one does not really believe in the promise of the West to begin with. One has already succumbed to the whispered despair of Grima Wormtongue.

I say all this not to chastise Richard S. personally. His comment is true as far as it goes, and I daily share in that kind of frustration. But despair is never the answer, and in a discussion about Tolkien, it misses the point entirely—comically, even. The power of truth is not in numbers. It is truth itself.

Thank you, as always, for maintaining this indispensable website.

Daniel H. continues:

I wonder why you posted the comment of Amit G. in this discussion. It’s riddled with typographical and grammatical errors, and the substance of it is either embarrassing naivete or transparent propaganda. If it is satire, as is suggested by another commenter, it loses its punch through poor composition. My observation doesn’t really pertain to my main point above, so I put it in postscript. If you see fit to publish my comment, I leave it up to you to include this PS or not. But I must say I’m surprised to see Amit’s comment among your usually top-flight reader comments.

LA replies:

I don’t know if Amit G. is for real or if he’s a white conservative doing a parody of a Third Worlder. But I find his comments funny and charming in an odd way. He represents the globalist forces, gently chiding me to give up the struggle to save the white West.

His spelling is atrocious, so I leave his spelling as is. If Amit G. is for real, it’s worth showing how bad his spelling is. If he’s a parody, that’s funny too.

Also, remember that I don’t exclude civil people who have different views from my own.

Daniel H. replies:

Certainly. That makes sense.

Paul T. writes:

Maybe Amit G. is being ironic, as one of your posters suggests, but I don’t see it. It looks like he is actually averring that Tolkien wrote about white-skinned beings because he didn’t know anything about other races. This is too funny, given that Tolkien was writing when the British ruled the largest empire in the world, containing all races. Um, I imagine he knew quite a bit about brown-skinned people.

James P. writes:

When I saw that story about “racism” in casting of The Hobbit, I thought, oh geez, liberalism does not even allow The Shire to keep out Pakistani immigrants. Will the Prancing Pony in Bree’s thriving “Asian Community” serve chicken tikka now?

We have sunk so low that not only are all-white countries impermissible in the real world, there cannot even be a completely imaginary all-white country!

They should have told her that dark-skinned midgets can only play goblins.

Philip M. writes from England:

I guess the “one ring to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them” in this case is Equality. And just like the One Ring, when the wearer puts it on he becomes invisible …

When Joel P. writes, “Tolkien wrote these stories as sort of lost mythologies for English beginnings,” we see how important it becomes for the other side to get minorities included in such a project. The English with pale-skinned beginnings? Racist. We see this news story as a frightening example of the totalitarian instincts of the left, they would see an all-white Lord Of The Rings as a frightening tool for potential white supremacy and identity. This is the way they see the world: anything that is entirely white is illegitimate, immoral, and dangerous. Obviously this includes the past, and mythology, and imagination, and probably even our dreams. It includes stained-glass windows and mediaeval paintings. It includes our families and children. Their only limitations for enforcing this code are technical and scientific ability and feeble public opinion. A trip to almost any school will demonstrate this: multi-racial pictures and murals abound, no text-book would ever have an all-white scene. The purpose is to make anything all white seem unthinkable, impossible. White children must be constantly hammered with the message; to construct or think of something as all-white is artificial, dysfunctional and dangerous. The viewing of such a scene should leave the watcher feeling deeply uncomfortable, as if they have just witnessed a crime.

If you ask most people about this episode, they will of course say it is “ridiculous” and an “over-reaction.” As with Muslim terrorists, what they will never allow themselves to do is see this story as part of a wider trend or a bigger picture. Everything must be treated in isolation or it becomes frightening. But if you were to ask such a person whether they therefore think an all-white Lord Of The Rings would be acceptable, what would be their response? That they don’t care either way, because race isn’t important. So I suppose most whites are still at the stage where they can handle something all-white as long as they know it was not deliberately constructed this way. But as whites are now hammered from birth with the multi-racial message, in the future it will become impossible for whites to do such a thing by mistake, or without political intent. In the future, writing a book like Lord Of The Rings, or drawing a picture which included no non-whites, will be considered a sign of sickness, treason, and revolutionary instincts. For white children it is the death of racial and ethnic innocence. Of course my inventing the term “racial innocence” would be appalling enough for some people—as if whiteness could ever be innocent. But what else do you call a world in which a child will know that they must include a quota of non-whites in every picture they draw or be seen as politically deviant?

In some ways this seems a point to trivial to mention, but I am sure this is why the white characters in the Simpsons are coloured yellow.

LA replies:

The movement to delegitimize and erase whiteness will only be stopped when white people begin actively and explicitly opposing it. Comments by individuals at a blog are a beginning. But it must become a movement active in society. If the white race—along with its culture, its identity, and its historic nations—is to survive, the defense must take a public, political form. This hasn’t happened yet in America. And, for all my talk about the subject, I can’t say that I have done anything to make it happen. But, whoever makes it happen, it is the indispensable thing upon which all else depends.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

It’s as bad as you say, and worse. In the upcoming movie adaptation of the comic book Thor, a black actor named Idris Elba has been cast as the omniscient guardian of Asgard, Heimdall. Yes, that’s right: a black man has been cast as a Norse god. Of his casting, Idris has the gall to say, “If you know anything about the Nords, they don’t look like me but there you go. I think that’s a sign of the times for the future.” A more open expression of liberalism’s basic program to erase whites not only in fact, but even in memory, could not be made.

Charles T. writes:

Daniel H. wrote:

The power of truth is not in numbers. It is truth itself.

This is the best operational and philosophical description of truth I have ever read at VFR. So completely true. This needs to be on your masthead as a credit to Daniel H. Truth is the only real power we have. The reality and power of truth is evidenced by the hatred of our adversaries and by the agreement and fellowship we have with our allies.

James P. writes:

If you read the full quote, I think Idris Elba is describing race-blind casting, not the elimination of whites, as the sign of the times and the wave of the future:

“I was cast in Thor and I’m cast as a Nordic god,” he said. “If you know anything about the Nords, they don’t look like me but there you go. I think that’s a sign of the times for the future. I think we will see multi-level casting. I think we will see that, and I think that’s good.”

The Guardian article notes past “progress” in race-blind casting:

Idris Elba is not the first black British actor to play a Scandinavian icon. In 2001, Adrian Lester played Hamlet in Paris, receiving rave reviews for his portrayal of the melancholy Dane in Peter Brook’s stripped-down production.

In the same year, David Oyelowo became the first black actor in the Royal Shakespeare Company’s history to be cast in the role of an English monarch when he played Henry VI in Histories.

In 2002, colour-blind casting came to Noël Coward when Chiwetel Ejiofor played Nicky Lancaster in The Vortex at the Donmar Warehouse.

Lester, who played the lead role in Nicholas Hytner’s satirical updating of Henry V in 2003, also joined the cast of the first all-black Broadway production of Cat On a Hot Tin Roof. Debbie Allen’s take on Tennessee Williams’s play, which opened in New York in 2008, starred James Earl Jones as Big Daddy and Phylicia Rashād as Big Mama. It transferred to the West End last November, with Lester as Brick, who was played in the 1958 film by Paul Newman.

Although the tradition of white actors such as Laurence Olivier and Orson Welles “blacking up” to play Othello has all but disappeared, gentile actors—such as Al Pacino—still routinely play Shylock in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice.

Cinema, which is far less reliant on existing, classic material, has lagged behind theatre when it comes to colour-blind casting.

Rumours of a black James Bond remain just that, although his CIA friend Felix Leiter has been played by two African-American actors, Bernie Casey in 1983’s Never Say Never Again, and Jeffrey Wright in the Daniel Craig films Casino Royale (2006) and Quantum of Solace (2008).

In 1999, another originally white US lawman, Captain James West, was played by Will Smith in Wild Wild West, which also starred Kenneth Branagh.

Race-blind casting has been discussed at VFR in the past. As noted then, “race-blind” really only means that blacks can play whites, never whites blacks. A black Thor is permitted, but a white actor playing an African deity would never be permitted.

LA replies:

In a world in which whites are ten percent of the human race, race-blind casting, race-blind immigration, race-blind inclusion, does mean the elimination of the white race. By that I of course don’t mean the literal elimination of all white people, but the elimination of the white race as historical, cultural entity.

The disappearance of the white race as the white race is a goal shared by race-blind right-liberals and race-conscious left-liberals.

John McNeil writes:

In addition to The Hobbit and Thor, another film featuring the diversification of a Euro-themed story is Conan 3D. I don’t know how familiar you are with the Conan universe, but the character’s origin as a Germanic barbarian is a very important dimension in the story, since the author (Robert Howard) had a strong interest in Indo-European history, and many stories explore Conan’s barbarian background clashing with more “civilized” Greco-Roman societies. Well, the actor selected for the “black-haired, sullen-eyed” Cimmerian (the catchphrase frequently used to describe Conan) is this guy.

Now granted, he could pull it off, especially with the dreadlocks shaved off, and he is half (or maybe one-third) white. But they could have easily have selected a more European-looking actor from the vast pool of hulking white figures. I can’t help but wonder if this selecting of a half-Hawaiian is yet another attempt at making white identity and culture universal, just like the the controversies in the Hobbit and Thor.

And whites are barely making any protests of this, and if they do, they get easily cowed. If we cannot stand up for our own legends and stories and claim them for our own, we deserve whatever fate awaits us.

Bruce B. writes:

Funny that they chose Heimdall. Heimdall is also known as “Rig.” In the Lay of Rig, Heimdall/Rig begets three children after sleeping in the bed of three different couples. The first is blond and is the ancestor of all nobility. The second is red-haired and is the ancestor of all freemen/farmers. The third is swarthy and is the ancestor of all thralls.

According to Wikipedia:

“Heimdallur (Old Norse Heimdallr, modern Icelandic Heimdallur) is one of the aesir (gods) in Norse mythology, in the Edda called the “white god” (hvitastr asa “whitest of the aesir”; hvíta as “white as”).”

The choice of actors may be designed to insulate the filmmakers from charges of you know what.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 29, 2010 04:20 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):