Palantir is decently self-descriptive, Anduril is the word that needs reclaiming.

Arguments about symbols and words are Godwin's law transcribed. It's a descent into past times and the current meaning of things more benign at the origin.

On the LOTR theme there's an old re-reading which projects the Orcs as exploited workers, the elvish wars as battles amongst ubermensch.

Palantir already has the blessings of the Tolkien estate. All the Tolkien-sounding companies in recent news have the blessings of the Tolkien estate.

> The stones were an unreliable guide to action, since what was not shown could be more important than what was selectively presented. A risk lay in the fact that users with sufficient power could choose what to show and what to conceal to other stones: in The Lord of the Rings, a palantír has fallen into the Enemy's hands, making the usefulness of all other existing stones questionable.

> ... the betrayal of the legacy of Tolkien ...

Today's world is the legacy of Tolkien. We've come to understand the world through the categories of Tolkien, without which we could not bear to act. We can act out a disavowal of Palantir, but we'd be disavowing Lord of the Rings at the same time. It's not like Tolkien ever overturned the palantir, he only went as far as to show the palantir to be politically dangerous, much like Bush and Obama saw sanctions against Iran. Tolkien never achieved a full critique. He stops at the point of a liberal plurality of knowledge (hobbits have experiential/ethical knowledge, elves have cultural preservation, wizards have lore/interpretation) so that no single group has a monopoly on truth, and they're all locked within their racial categories. He never writes about the erosion of race and the universalization of knowledge.

You should read Tolkien to understand Palantir. This business of "reclaiming" amounts to disavowal of reality.