Thursday, July 21, 2011

Was Voldemort Right? What type of world is Harry Potter fighting to Protect?

Was Voldemort right?
Editor's note: In talking with a friend about what compels one to be 'good', we started discussing the wildly popular Harry Potter book and movie series. Phenomenon would be a more apt word. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 came out last Friday and tens of millions of people went to the theaters to watch the finale. 
Steve Sailer wrote an interesting article for Takimag that discussed the world of Hogwarts, wizardry, and Harry Potter. Titled Harry Potter's Story of Race and Inheritance, he wrote:
Yet, because Muggles are so boring, the main impetus of the plot comes not from conflicts between Muggles and wizards, but from the war over race relations waged among wizards. On one side are our tolerant heroes. On the other are the evil Nazi purebloods—such as Voldemort and blond Draco Malfoy, Harry’s archrival from Slytherin House—who denigrate wizards of mixed-ancestry as “mudbloods.” 

Although Rowling, who once worked for Amnesty International, makes her books ostentatiously anti-racist, there’s something fundamentally bogus about her fa├žade of conventional modern politics. Wizardry turns out to feature a politically incorrect dependence upon nature rather than nurture. Blood will tell. As Chris Suellentrop scoffed in Slate at Rowling’s eugenic worldview: “Hogwarts is nothing more than a magical Mensa meeting.”
The individual who wrote the article below (we'll call it Was Voldemort Right?) dares go one step further than Sailer's analysis and postulate a question that few dare ask... was the Dark Lord right? Now this site is SBPDL, but it's always good to throw in pop culture articles now and then. This is one of those rare exceptions. "Paul Kersey" is one person, but in this instance, I'm proud to share this forum with a writer that makes many interesting points that Muggles will find unsavory. But in the end - if you know much about Harry Potter - you'll have to ask yourself: What type of world is Harry Potter fighting to protect?
For those uninitiated into Harry Potter's world, this one might be over your head. Nevertheless, enjoy. 
-----
The Harry Potter series enchanted the hearts and minds of child and adult alike, and captivated an entire generation of readers.  Harry Potter is a global phenomenon, a multimillion dollar a year industry that has catapulted JK Rowling into international superstardom en route to becoming one of the wealthiest women in the world.

At a cursory glance, the tale of Harry and his companions is rife with the proper social pathologies and messages that permeate every book and movie in this multicultural age.  As a result, conservatives, libertarians, and particularly, leftist and far left activists have all sought to utilize Harry Potter for their own devices, claiming he and Albus Dumbledore as champions for progress and tolerance.

Of course, the directors of the films make sure to depict the enemy of the series, the malevolent, genocidal, Lord Voldemort as a wanton mass murderer obsessed with the concept of immortality.  This is a slight departure from the calculating and collected wizard depicted in the books, who strove for a greater society built on natural hierarchy.  Voldemort’s nuances and vision were left out of the movie in favor of a theatrical performance by Ralph Fiennes that may work on the big screen, yet ultimately left a camp stain on a much more complex character.

Rowling should be credited with creating such an intricate web of characters who’s story arcs all end with the mighty crescendo of drawn wands.  Readers and critics are generally so engrossed within the story itself that they fail to truly evaluate the social surroundings in which the story takes place.

The viewer is expected to take as a given the society that Harry Potter is defending as good, and to blindly pay fealty to loyalties provided. Instead of a critical glance, it’s very easy to fall into the corny morality that Harry never seems to transcend throughout the books and movies.

Hogwarts sure is a white school...
This view holds that Voldemort is the unquestioned epitome of evil while Harry symbolizes all that is good and right.  Ignored are the societal realities that motivate both Lord Voldemort and his Death Eaters, as well as Albus Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix.

As a result, Rowling leaves ample room for questions that desperately need to be answered.  One of the most important questions is what exactly was Harry Potter defending?  What was the society that Harry, Dumbledore, and the rest of his intrepid friends sought to preserve from the evil clutches of Lord Voldemort and his despicable minions?

Deep down in the pit of your stomach, there lies this sneaking suspicion that there are some flaws within Harry’s worldview.  The curious dare to lend inclination towards the unthinkable notion that some of the things advocated by Lord Voldemort, may in fact be true.

As a result, when watching the movie and reading through the books, over and again, the inquisitive are faced with one question you are not supposed to ask; “was Lord Voldemort right?”

If we truly investigate the world in which Harry lives, and look at the skull beneath the skin, it is not the egalitarian dreamland that many of the more progressive supporters of the book seem to valorize.

The bondage of house elves as lifelong slaves to wizarding families is taken as a fact.  Goblins are strictly kept in their proper place manning the vaults ensconced within the caverns of Gringotts.  Centaurs, werewolves, and other sentient magical creatures are relegated to protected areas out of the way of ordinary wizarding life.

Interestingly enough, magic is not a wellspring from which all can drink.  A Bell Curve does apply to the wizarding world as magic is not equally distributed.  Some wizards have a higher aptitude in regards to their capabilities than others.  While Harry’s female accomplice Hermoine is out mastering complex spells and creating potions that would confound warlocks five times her age, her compatriot in Gryffindor House Neville Longbottom can at times barely tie his shoes.

Rowling makes it very clear in regards to the inheritability of magic that wizards are a genetic elite, who chose to live a completely separate existence.  They are literally a race unto their own, and pass magic along through blood.  As a result they have their own schools, financial institutions, government, and traditions.  They are a culture within a culture, a genetic aristocracy hidden within the folds of society itself. 

Additionally, despite their vast powers, even normal wizards are not globally oriented altruists like many of their non magical counterparts.   Harry, Dumbledore, and the rest of the Order of the Phoenix are not interested in ruling the non wizarding world, nor do they do not seem particularly concerned with the problems that those who well within it face.

Wizards have an amazing ability to use magic to their benefit, and could easily solve many of the problems that the non wizarding world faces.  Poverty, diseases, crime, and science all could be aided by wizarding ingenuity and know how, yet they chose to sever their connections to this world in favor of experimenting for their own benefit.

Instead wizards live in a completely segregated society, and shun many of the advances of modern life.  Wizards follow the International Decree of Secrecy and refuse to divulge information about themselves to the general population.  Magic is best kept a hidden secret, only to be explored and experimented with by the genetically fortunate.  They are the ones who will reap the bountiful rewards that magic brings, while the hapless non magical types will have to work through decades of technology to achieve even of their power.

Harry and his friends are also dismissive of the non wizarding world.  Non wizards although not harmed, are often depicted as bumbling imbeciles who can barely fend for themselves.  Wizards even have a specified word for those who do not have magical genes, deeming the non wizarding world as “muggles”  Given that muggle is a word used to identify someone of a certain genetic character, it is literally one of the more discriminatory terms one could possibly imagine.  Routinely muggles are depicted as gullible simpletons.  Harry’s blood relatives the Dursley’s are oafish modern Britons, while at one point in the series the Weasley twins discuss how they enjoy going into the village and impressing local girls with their card trickery.

If the non wizarding world ever does catch sight of something that may make them question their conventions, wizards confound them into forgetting it ever happened.  Wizards even insert plants within the branches of the non wizarding government to keep an eye on things, and to act as a liaison in the event of a breach between both worlds.
What type of world is Harry Potter fighting to protect?

Harry is fighting to preserve a fundamentally segregated society.

Unlike Lord Voldemort, or at one point in time, Albus Dumbledore, Harry is completely content to preserve the world that exists around him.  Harry at the end of book seven even comments that “I’ve had enough trouble for one life” and is content to live out his existence in peace with the world around.

Harry is a character who goes through many evolutions, but these are all initiated by the stimulus of
Adding to the already elitist components of the series, the wizarding world is also relatively anti-democratic.  Although the Minister of Magic is supposedly elected according to some sources, exactly who gets to vote is ominously missing.  One can likely assume that voting probably takes place by the high wizards of the Wizengamot, an elite group comprised of the best and wisest magical minds throughout the land.  They seem to make a majority of the decisions for the magical community throughout the books, and do so without consent to those they oversee.

Not all in the wizarding world consent to the society provided.  Lord Voldemort and his followers the Death Eaters offer a different alternative.  Voldemort was raised in an orphanage after his mother died shortly after childbirth.  Voldemort was left to fend for himself at an orphanage, and utilized his magical powers as a survival mechanism through he rose to the top of the pack of his fellow abandoned peers.  It was a Godsend for the young Tom Riddle to find out from the visiting Albus Dumbledore at age 11 that he was a unique and special.

His wildest dreams were pushed even further upon realizing that his capabilities far outpaced anything that had ever been seen in the wizarding world before.  Hogwarts was alight with the glory of Tom Riddle, who was a powerful and prodigious talent, always pushing magic to the next level.  Even Albus Dumbledore himself admits that Tom Riddle/Voldemort knew more about magic than any wizard that had ever existed.

Unfortunately, a hole existed in the soul of Riddle who longed to find out about his family history.  Upon discovering the unfortunate truth of his not so noble origins, and the way in which his muggle father abandoned him at birth, Voldemort became convinced of the ignoble and disreputable nature that the non wizarding world held towards their magical counterparts.

This coupled with being surrounded by less talented muggles at the orphanage during his summer months away from Hogwarts Castle only intensified his disdain for the world of the ordinary.

Voldemort is in some ways, the dynamic faustian individualist we see emerging in many civilizations. Instead of giving in to weakness, Voldemort crafted an ideology of power.  One that would put the non magical in their proper place and foment a society that would emphasis the talented as opposed to the idiotic.

Voldemort is of course motivated by his own selfish desire to conquer death, but for a wizard of his power who had achieved so much, one can only ask, what else was left for him?  As if the technological and medical advances we pursue today are any less of a Promethean effort to stave off the inevitable.
Voldemort and his Death Eaters merely want to preserve their own society.  Is Voldemort any more selfish for his desire to sacrifice people to will his own vision than Albus Dumbledore was for rearing Harry like a stock pig so that he could die at Voldemort’s hands and set up a scenario for his downfall?  Dumbledore is every bit as Machiavellian as Voldemort, he just works towards ends that are more in line with the egalitarian zeitgeist of our age.
Given that magic is a rare gene, and that it could be easily squandered, the Death Eaters hesitations about intermarriage are fairly logical.  One of the primary goals of the Death Eaters is to create a society in which magic can be fully explored, and this can only be accomplished if wizards are being bred at their highest possible potential.  Additionally they fundamentally understand that there is a link between the people and their culture, and that outside influences are a harmful influence.  Voldemort echoes this in the book and film when he offers a truce to the wizards of Hogwarts fighting against his influence by stating that every death is a drop of magical blood wasted.
Sure, Voldemort has many flaws, and his moral compass is certainly something untrained to our modern notion of good versus evil.  On some level though, Voldemort creates his own ethical standards, placing him firmly in the creator class versus the conservative Harry Potter who takes society as a given.  Even Harry’s mentor Albus Dumbledore flirted with the notion of power in his youth.  Instead Harry is a character who only is a reaction to the will of Lord Voldemort.  Harry defends, without question that world which has made him.  He fights because it preserves his life, and those of his friends.
Harry’s world is certainly much more worthy of preservation than the vile system known as Black-Run America (BRA) that we currently exist under.  Despite these healthy influences, we can only assume that the society that Harry Potter preserved from the dastardly Lord Voldemort is one where the right amount of progress has been made.  

I am sure by the time Harry said goodbye to his son Albus Severus as he boarded the train to Hogwarts that every house elf has been given forty acres and a mule, goblins are protected by special hate crimes legislation, and giants are the beneficiaries of affirmative action programs that provide them with jobs at the Ministry of Magic.  I am also positive the Slytherins are taught to despise themselves and their history, and that muggles are allowed into Hogwarts on the egalitarian basis that “magic is a social construct”.

Is Lord Voldemort really evil for not respecting the modern society of muggles, one replete with limp wristed leaders, a fecund culture, and a populace more nihilistic than a Ke$ha music video.  Is Lord Voldemort truly evil for not respecting the slothy modern Briton who would rather watch some guy kick a ball into a goal while he stuffs his face with chips and ale as his country descends into a multicultural cesspool?

 If you were Lord Voldemort, would you really look at Tony Blair or David Cameron, or the Osbournes and say “By golly these people are worth defending and preserving!”?  If you do, then you are a more conniving and soulless villain than anything that could emerge from the darkest recesses of JK Rowling’s imagination.  Perhaps in the end, Voldemort was right.

74 comments:

Snow Walker said...

I have, so far, avoided reading the books or watching the movies. Getting really curious about it now.

"Harry defends, without question that world which has made him."

True for millions of looters!

Stephen said...

I read through all the books and watching all the movies cheering for Voldemort. Even though Rowling went out of her way to emphasize that Slytherin was the bad house, I was a die hard Slytherin fan.

Anonymous said...

Now that's writing. I like Octavian caesar as an example. He wiped out any opposition. Started from scratch and improved rome as an efficient machine as much as he could to last as long as possible. "Behold, I found Rome of clay, and leave her to you of marble."

Despot or not, I like it.

Anonymous said...

I wanted Lord Voldermort to survive and to end up with Bellatrix LeStrange in the end. My major beef with Harry Potter books is their anti-racism (and a few times the occult imagery).

Galf said...

Never read the books, but I've seen the movies. To me, it is a bunch of whites saving the world, which I guess can't be that bad of a message. However, the world that they are saving is...unsavory.

Anonymous said...

Ok wait a minute, a few points to ponder:
1) Voldemort's father was a muggle.
2) Voldemort espoused the beliefs of Salazar Slytherin, in that muggle-born witches or wizards could not attend Hogwarts in order to learn further magic.
3) Voldemort as the "heir of Slytherin" unleashed the basilisk to destroy any non-purebloods at Hogwarts.
Ok, so how could the "heir" be muggle-born? And why didn't the basilisk kill him when he unleashed it?
Well, of course, I've read all the books and seen all the movies, why do you ask?

Anonymous said...

Love the term "mudblood"... It will now be my choice of terms to describe someone who is racially "mixed."

Anonymous said...

Professor of Muggle Studies [facepalm]

Anonymous said...

@ Anon 10:17

Short answer: Because Rowling needed to make Voldemort a hypocrite.

In-universe, you can justify it by saying magical descent is determined on matriarchal lines, or that the 'heir of Slytherin' is a symbolic, not genetic position.

Anomalous E said...

My impression is that Rowling is as superversive as she can get away with - the books have a token minority, but all the heroes are white. The best family, the Weasleys, is a large family of white people with lots of children. Wizards are a race of their own, and the Dursleys show how disastrous transracial adoption can be.

And this - "I am sure by the time Harry said goodbye to his son Albus Severus as he boarded the train to Hogwarts that every house elf has been given forty acres and a mule" - seems incredibly unlikely to me. Hermione tried to leave gifts for the house elves to free them, and the regular house elves refused, with Dobby picking up everything. Dobby is exceptional, and Hermione eventually forgets and gives up on her project.

In my opinion, it's hardly fair to lambast Rowling for being behind SBPDL when she's so far ahead of the curve. Any further and she'd have lost outreach and effect. We have several of SBPDL and Steve Sailer and the like already. Rowling is more valuable as a popularizer of the large, loving, white family with lots of children than as an explainer of exactly *why* this family should be loved.

Anonymous said...

A few things - first I noticed that V is sheet white, but at the same time Rowling points out that breeding counts, (in that V is genuinely inbred) which is modern heresy.

Second, she has Griphook the Goblin declining to do housework like an elf as 'Unbecoming of my race. I am not a house elf' Rowling is therefore saying that the races are intrinsically different - more heresy.

Third - I think she makes the point that hose elves are domesticated, like dogs. They LIKE servitude. More heresy.

Anonymous said...

Ok wait a minute, a few points to ponder:
1) Voldemort's father was a muggle.
2) Voldemort espoused the beliefs of Salazar Slytherin, in that muggle-born witches or wizards could not attend Hogwarts in order to learn further magic.
3) Voldemort as the "heir of Slytherin" unleashed the basilisk to destroy any non-purebloods at Hogwarts.
Ok, so how could the "heir" be muggle-born? And why didn't the basilisk kill him when he unleashed it?
Well, of course, I've read all the books and seen all the movies, why do you ask?


You are clearly confused. Muggle-born means a witch or a wizard from two non-magical muggle parents with a recessive magical gene (muggle blood but with magical abilities).

For example: Father is Mw and Mother is Mw. Lily Evans is ww and therefore a muggle-born witch.

Most muggle-borns had no witches nor wizards for generations and didn't even know that magical creatures existed.

Voldemort is HALF-BLOOD. Mother was a pure full blood witch and the father was a muggle.

Look at Harry he's half-blood but he married Ginny, full blooded pure witch, and had children with 3/4 magical blood.

A half-blood is bad compared to a pure full-blood but preferable to a muggle-born.

I mean look at Bellatrix LeStrange. She was pure full blood and married Rudolphus because of pure blood but loved Lord Voldemort (Half-Blood).

If it was possible I don't think she would have mind to provide an heir to Lord Voldermort for the Salazar Slytherine lineage since she was his most loyal and obsessed follower (the heir would have been 3/4 magical blood).

The structure is kind of like this in my opinion:

- Full pure blood = The best.
- 3/4 magical blood = Very good.
- Half blood = Acceptable but not the best choice.
- 1/4 magical blood = Dirt.
- Muggle born = Dirt.

Eko said...

@ Anonymous 10:17 - Tom Riddle abandoned Merope Gaunt and therefore Tom Riddle Jr. (aka Lord Voldermort) grew up an orphan when the mother died in child birth. When Lord Voldermort found out that his father was a muggle he interrogated him like this "Did you leave my mother because she was a witch?". He then killed his father to make his first horcrux, blamed it on his uncle and despised his muggle father ever since. That grew, grew and grew and he started to despise in particular muggle-born witches/wizards and wanted to eradicate them all. He didn't despise half-bloods since he himself was half-blood. His aim was all of those muggle-born witches/wizards.

Anyhow was Lord Voldermort right? You bet he was.

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...more Mahoganey Mob action...this time in Denver. Black thugs assaulting whites with baseball bats before robbing them. Where the eff is the outrage????

PercyKittensReloaded said...

On a similar note...Captain America is opening tomorrow and it's getting great reviews. Can't wait to see it.

Racialicious.com is whining that the movie "is completely white"

(http://www.racialicious.com/2011/07/21/captain-america's-first-movie-and-the-real-first-avenger/#more-16453)

But even with that source material, there’s still a significantly small number of heroes of color found in the movies. Acknowledging Isaiah adds authentic diversity to a film that, aside from Derek Luke’s small part as Howling Commando Gabriel Jones and Samuel L. Jackson’s inevitable after-credit cameo, is completely white – a setting that ignores the sacrifices of thousands of Black and Hispanic U.S. soldiers during the real World War II, and the discrimination they still had to fight after returning home.

It's important to reward the studio with my money because they resisted the temptation to cast Will Smith in the film or make it overly politically correct (but mostly it looks like a great film)

leparsell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stuff Black People Don't Like said...

Percy,

Tomorrow will be the day of Paul Kersey online. Vdare is running an article by me on Captain America and the Tuskegee Experiments (in 2002, Marvel made the first Captain America a Black guy).

Alternative Right will run a joint article by me and Richard Spencer on what Captain America actually means now.

And, of course, "Captain America and Whiteness: The Superheroes Dilemma" will be released, a book that has 70 percent unpublished material in it.

Racialicious won't like it... trust me.

Anonymous said...

Hey Paul


If you haven't already, check this out:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/07/genetic_researc.php

Anonymous said...

While there are flaws in Harry's world, there is no question that what Voldemort wanted was far worse. It wasn't just that he wanted to purge 'mudbloods' from the wizarding world, he and his followers tormented and killed muggles just for sport. His government was built on lies and persecution Harry and his crew wanted a world where accomplishment mattered, not what race you were born to.

Ryu said...

Completely white huh? That sounds like a ringing endorsement to me. I may actually have to see that.

I don't know the first thing about Harry Potter. I do know that the multicultural BRA agenda falls apart onscreen. Alot of writers believe race but use "Aesopian Fables" to get their message across.

Anonymous said...

Of course, there is also the fact that, as magic-users interbreed with muggles, magic literally disappears.

Not only does it disappear but it takes decades (perhaps one to two centuries) and generations for the magical gene to reappear itself (which is where the whole muggle born witch/wizard thing comes in) because the muggle for all we know that is Mw can be mating with a MM (muggle muggle) and not a Mw therefore the magical gene loses itself even more.

Lucille said...

I got a 404 message when I clicked on the Racialicious link, and I couldn't find the relevant article when I searched the site - did they take it down?

Anonymous said...

Anomalous E

JK Rowling is a Labour party donor. The labour party is made up of SWPL/DWLs that cant/wont see.

Whiskey said...

I don't think you've understood what Rowling wrote. It is basically a class not race argument, in favor of a "middling class of good people" to run things. The Weaselys for example, being the "future" and what Harry fights for (his own middle class family which he gets in the end).

Tom Riddle/Voldemort is the descendant of debased, very inbred, low-IQ, but powerful wizards (Slytherin in fact) who live like animals despite their power and abilities. Voldemort's world is one based on nobility and inheritance, specifically REJECTING "High IQ" aka "High Magic" power people from "half-blood" backgrounds like himself ... or double-agent Severus Snape. Voldemort wants a total aristocratic, nobility rule with himself as a king who never dies.

Harry Potter wants a middle class society, where he and his friends Ron and Hermoine run things. One with isolation, the "secret kept" from ordinary people. Whom Harry suffers in miserable sanctuary every summer in the books. By contrast Voldemort wants to OPENLY rule ordinary people as well, instead of keeping separate from them. He's "bad" because he uses "racist words" like mudbloods and so on, but his viewpoint is that of say, Charles the First of England, or King John. Divine right of kings, rule by blood and nobility, including of course those who are drooling idiots but have the correct lineage. Harry wants a middle class meritocracy, as befitting his writer who was for a while, before her divorce, middle class herself. Yes this got settled decisively in the late 18th Century, in Europe, but Rowling being an Englishwoman lives with the echoes of class domination by the aristocracy. [She also despises the PC lies and bureaucracy, which comes through in her portrayals of the amoral Dolores Umbridge.]

Ultimately Harry Potter is neither "racist" nor anti-racist, it is a struggle between middle class people and Divine Right of Kings.

Discard said...

Anomalous E at 2:44 PM: Most adult liberals/SWPLs know all about race, whether they admit it to themselves or not. They buy houses in White areas, or send their kids to private schools that have only a carefully measured amount of diversity. JK Rowling is simply a hypocrite.

Whiskey said...

It is also true that Rowling is a Labor party donor, said Dumbledore was gay in front of an audience of fawning women to get applause, and has lots of PC tendencies. Which she doesn't really believe in, the heroes are not token non-Whites, or the Asian chick (who comes off badly) that Harry briefly was entranced with, but the middle class Weaselys and Hermoine and Harry, Middle class brought low like his creator.

Underneath of course is the riff that magical people despite all their magical powers lack any real knowledge of or appreciation of the power of technology. You have to be special, "talented" (and necessarily smart either) to use Magic. Anyone can pick up a weapon. Voldemort for all his power had nothing like the power of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Magical people can't use the telephone, remain ignorant of computers, TV, and the like. While real life surveillance techniques, hacking, video drones, armed drones, and the like provide near-science fiction riffs to daily life.

In Rowlings world magic is a talent. You are born with it or not. The main schools are founded on bravery, or on hard work, or on scholarship, or on birthright. "Diversity" is not something that even Rowling believed in, Hogwarts was not over-run with ordinary Muggles with no magic boarding the magic train. Harry Potter was as always a struggle within White ruling class people as to which group would run things. Ordinary people (like the Dursleys) were never consulted or asked about anything.

Stirner said...

I have to admit, "Muggle Mob" might be even catchier than "Mahogany Mob"

Anonymous said...

SBPDL- paying for their own cultural museums-

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/arts/design/wilders-plan-for-slavery-museum-may-have-ended.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Axe Head said...

In Star Wars Episodes I-III (I saw them, I will flog myself in penance tonight. Again.) I found myself loathing the Jedi. They all sounded so...Liberal.

I've avoided Harry Potter. Thank God for Tolkein.

Anonymous said...

Harry Potter are the most racist books I've ever read, so racist they would make any race realist blush. But it's done in such a way that it's acceptable to DWLs, largely by using fictitious inferior races such as Goblins, House-Elves, Trolls, Giants, and worst of all Gnomes. They enslave house-elves, and openly exterminate gnomes, despite both of them looking humanoid. Because the genetic differences are recognised.

Anonymous said...

Axe Head, my interpretation of Star Wars is thus: I-III have basically retconed Star Wars into a galactic power struggle between two fanatical religious cults who subvert governments and wage war against each other using the lives of billions of people who for genetic reasons could never be a part of either cult. I suppose it's a cynical interpretation but it's the only way I can watch Star Wars post-I-III with any enjoyment.

Anonymous said...

Karen Traviss took on the Jedi genetic cult issue in her books about Mandalorians...And was promptly shouted down by angry fans who couldn't understand why people might not just want to blindly trust someone who because he said was "on the right side" doesn't mean that they always are.

Lucas threw a fit, retconned all of her work, and she quit in the middle of a series.

Anonymous said...

Tom Riddle/Voldemort is the descendant of debased, very inbred, low-IQ, but powerful wizards (Slytherin in fact) who live like animals despite their power and abilities.

Lord Voldermort (aka Tom Riddle) might have been "inbreed" but he was pretty high IQ (rumoured to be one of the most intelligent wizards bar none ever in the Wizard world) and you're right that the Slytherins were depicted as powerful.

Ultimately Harry Potter is neither "racist" nor anti-racist, it is a struggle between middle class people and Divine Right of Kings.

You have to be kidding me. J.K. Rowling was part of Amnesty International and she's an anti-racist SWPL (white liberal) chick.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, not a Harry Potter fan but love Alphaville. I am an 80's lovers. The 60s, 70s and 80s were awesome years for the pop rock groups.

Anonymous said...

So when did the magic gene evolve, where, and which groups have it?

wanderlost said...

Either get an editor or hire me as yours. It's "Fiennes," not "Fienes." It's also "camp," not "campy," and... Oh, bugger it.

Dissident said...

I agree with anon above! I love the 80's myself and Alphaville is good music, unlike that dreadful RAP (Retards Attempting Poetry) and hip-hop noise. Just thought I'd interject.

Dissident

Anonymous said...

Yes, me again...
Another inconsistency (as I see it, anyway) is according to the books/movies, Voldemort was simply this super-intelligent wizard that "made all the wrong choices" - really smart, but unable to make the right choices?? I would think the smart person would be able to identify the correct choices. So if one determines to knowingly make choices that are evil, wouldn't be obvious that the individual is essentially evil - and not simply a product of mistakenly choosing the evil options or being misled? And then it is preached to Harry that there is both light and dark in everyone, and the choices they make determine what type of individual they are - uh, wouldn't that also mean what type of individual you are determines what choices you make? Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

Jaque said...

But in the end - if you know much about Harry Potter - you'll have to ask yourself: What type of world is Harry Potter fighting to protect?

A segregated and anti-democratic society. Magic is nature and by blood. Not nurture.

Is Lord Voldemort really evil for not respecting the modern society of muggles, one replete with limp wristed leaders, a fecund culture, and a populace more nihilistic than a Ke$ha music video. Is Lord Voldemort truly evil for not respecting the slothy modern Briton who would rather watch some guy kick a ball into a goal while he stuffs his face with chips and ale as his country descends into a multicultural cesspool?

No Lord Voldermort is not evil. He's right.

If you were Lord Voldemort, would you really look at Tony Blair or David Cameron, or the Osbournes and say “By golly these people are worth defending and preserving!”? If you do, then you are a more conniving and soulless villain than anything that could emerge from the darkest recesses of JK Rowling’s imagination. Perhaps in the end, Voldemort was right.

Agreed.

Anonymous said...

While there are flaws in Harry's world, there is no question that what Voldemort wanted was far worse. It wasn't just that he wanted to purge 'mudbloods' from the wizarding world, he and his followers tormented and killed muggles just for sport. His government was built on lies and persecution Harry and his crew wanted a world where accomplishment mattered, not what race you were born to.

He probably erected the wizard equivalent of BRA (Black-Run America) aka "Muggle Run-Wizard World".

By golly I hate Harry Potter but this is spot-on:

I am sure by the time Harry said goodbye to his son Albus Severus as he boarded the train to Hogwarts that every house elf has been given forty acres and a mule, goblins are protected by special hate crimes legislation, and giants are the beneficiaries of affirmative action programs that provide them with jobs at the Ministry of Magic. I am also positive the Slytherins are taught to despise themselves and their history, and that muggles are allowed into Hogwarts on the egalitarian basis that “magic is a social construct”.

This should be stamped on every annoying Harry Potter fan's head.

Anonymous said...

"I am sure by the time Harry said goodbye to his son Albus Severus as he boarded the train to Hogwarts that every house elf has been given forty acres and a mule, goblins are protected by special hate crimes legislation, and giants are the beneficiaries of affirmative action programs that provide them with jobs at the Ministry of Magic. I am also positive the Slytherins are taught to despise themselves and their history, and that muggles are allowed into Hogwarts on the egalitarian basis that “magic is a social construct”."

Hahaha nicely written Paul. Coming from someone who was a big fan of the Harry Potter books but lukewarm on the movies I must say this is an excellent analysis. I found the metaphor for racism in the book annoying, yet the commentary against bloated Soviet style bureaucracy in the 5th and 7th books hilarious. The problem is that the books were designed for children, therefore they were written w/ characters that were morally unambiguous. So it was more of a World Conqueror/Mass Murderer vs Pure of Soul World Saver.

Was Voldemort right about a thing or two @ least? Oh yes he was

Left Coast Dude

Sheila said...

I really enjoyed reading this post. I read the Potter books as they came out, with my older son. I saw the first movie and none since. The first few books were great fun, but they made less sense and seemed more ideologically confused as they delved deeper into the Voldemort controversy. I must be muggle-headed, because the parallel between HBD/race realism (i.e. magic being purely genetic) never occurred to me! I may have to go re-read them in light of this. After reading about Rowling and Dumbledore's purported gayness, I tuned out the whole deal.

map said...

Actually, I think Whiskey is right. This is a class struggle between the Voldemort idea of pureblood rule against the middle class idea of meritocracy.

The key point to keep in mind is that, to be a wizard/witch, one must possess the recessive "ww" alleles. This means everyone at Hogwarts has the same essential genetic makeup, regardless of whether their parents were mudbloods or not.

This means that Voldemort is not a "Half Blood" Prince. He is a "ww", just like Hermione and Harry, and Ron and everyone else.

It also means that Voldemort cannot be right for waging war with Muggles because they are the primary source of wizards. Voldemart has to recognize that there are not enough pureblood wizards to make a viable population even if the rate of pure wizard children among wizards is 100%.

No, it seems that Voldemart is wrong. He is driven by power to behave irrationally, and, thus, is an evil force of nature. It is irrational for him to hate Muggles and Half-Blood ancestry. For example, Hermione could have relations with every member of slytherin house, and all of their kids would be wizards.

Sop, whiskey is right that Rowling is writing a class warfare story.

map said...

Also, the reason why you have goblins and other creatures labeled as inferior is because Rowling is a woman, and all women are obsessed with status and hierarchy.

Anonymous said...

I think some people just have too much time on their hands...it's a FREAKING MOVIE SERIES!

Julianne said...

Nah I disagree map. Whiskey is wrong. There IS a class struggle but it ain't one of the centerpieces of the Harry Potter series.

I think some people just have too much time on their hands...it's a FREAKING MOVIE SERIES!

So? Everything has a philosophy or idea behind it no matter how small. You're basically sounding the typical liberal alarm that "Oh gosh don't loook at itt tooo much in deepth!!! It's juuuuust a mooooviee!"

I wish it was just a movie but it isn't. Nothing is always "just is".

Anonymous said...

The key point to keep in mind is that, to be a wizard/witch, one must possess the recessive "ww" alleles. This means everyone at Hogwarts has the same essential genetic makeup, regardless of whether their parents were mudbloods or not.

You forgot how mixing with muggles completely eradicates the "ww" gene.

This means that Voldemort is not a "Half Blood" Prince. He is a "ww", just like Hermione and Harry, and Ron and everyone else.

Of course they're all "ww". The difference is how they are all "ww".

It also means that Voldemort cannot be right for waging war with Muggles because they are the primary source of wizards.

What the heck? Are you blind? They were never the primary sources of wizards. Those "muggle-born" wizards had a full wizard sometime during their lineage way, way long ago. All of the sudden this "ww" shows up from their wizard ancestor in a muggle and you think "muggles are the sources of wizards!". You wish.

Voldemart has to recognize that there are not enough pureblood wizards to make a viable population even if the rate of pure wizard children among wizards is 100%.

Easy solution. Mate a full blood wizard with a muggle born wizard and then mate the half blood offspring with a full blood wizard. Repeat for sucessive generations. Thereby all future generations would be all 3/4 magical blood but still have enough genetic differences to not be considered inbreed.

What do you want instead? To flood the Wizard world with muggles until there is no Wizard left? Oopps.

No, it seems that Voldemart is wrong. He is driven by power to behave irrationally, and, thus, is an evil force of nature. It is irrational for him to hate Muggles and Half-Blood ancestry. For example, Hermione could have relations with every member of slytherin house, and all of their kids would be wizards.

I've come to the conclusion that you are a liberal idiot. Voldermort may be bad but you are far worse. You're wrong. You're far more evil than he would ever be and anything that may come out from J.K. Rowling's mind.

I am sure by the time Harry said goodbye to his son Albus Severus as he boarded the train to Hogwarts that every house elf has been given forty acres and a mule, goblins are protected by special hate crimes legislation, and giants are the beneficiaries of affirmative action programs that provide them with jobs at the Ministry of Magic. I am also positive the Slytherins are taught to despise themselves and their history, and that muggles are allowed into Hogwarts on the egalitarian basis that “magic is a social construct”.

Anonymous said...

JK Rowling is a PC Left Wing Marxist and likes many people that support Communism like a Mitford sister,Martin Luthur King and Nelson Mendela.

Tolkien and Roald Dahl have been called Racist.
So has the man that created Conan.

Racism was a term that was created by Leon Trosky, a Communist.

Anonymous said...

QUOTE "map said...
Also, the reason why you have goblins and other creatures labeled as inferior is because Rowling is a woman, and all women are obsessed with status and hierarchy." END QUOTE

Can you explain this a bit more and give examples that demonstrate women are obsessed with hierarchy?

Discard said...

Anon at 6:07 PM: Movies are important. That's where a great many people get their notions of how the world really works. If I controlled the movie industry, I'd probably control the music industry too, pumping my ideas into every set of teen-aged ears in the country. I'd also likely control the schools, both political parties, and maybe even Wall Street.

Anonymous said...

"I think some people just have too much time on their hands...it's a FREAKING MOVIE SERIES!"

Please tell this to all the negroes who piss and moan about movies that "lack diversity".

map said...

Anonymous, 8:29.

Mixing with Muggles does not eliminate the gene. The gene becomes unexpressed, as it is a recessive trait.

For example, if an MM breeds with a ww, then all of their children will be Mw's. If an MM breeds with an Mw, then only 2 of their 4 children will be Mw's. If an Mw breeds with an Mw, 3 of the kids will be Mw's and only one will be a ww.

Voldemort has no reason to wage war against other wizards over genetics since everyone is the same genetic makeup.

Slytherin House has no reason to look down on Hermione's lineage because it did not change the fact that she is still a wizard. Mating with her by any member of Slytherin would result in 4 wizard offspring.

So, Voldemort certainly has a case against MM muggles, but not Mw muggles, since they will be an important source of wizards given that their are not enough ww expressed wizards to sustain a wizard population without dysgenic breeding.

Btw, I prefer that Voldemort be right, but since Rowling is adopting Mendelian genetics in her explanation of wizardry, genetic math must trump Voldemort's position.

map said...

Anonymous, 10:38pm

Women prefer aristocracy because it is an easy way to filter out who the best and the worst men are. Aristocracies are built around bloodlines, so a woman who manages to insert herself into a royal bloodline not only assures high status for herself, she assures high status for her children.

This is why status counts for so much in the Harry Potter series. Harry is valued because of his destiny, but his destiny is a product of his bloodline (his parents died fighting Voldemort).

Harry does very little of the heavy lifting on his own, instead relying on Hermione (the talented, middle-class "striver") to do most of the work for him. Through her efforts, Hermione becomes a member of Harry Potter's "court."

The PC sensibilities are simply the "manners of the Court", but, make no mistake this is an aristocratic society.


This is in stark contrast to Tolkien. Frodo is completely outshone by his compatriots: a powerful wizard; an heir to a throne of Gondor; a high elf; a warrior gnome; and an exceptional human. Yet, all bow to him because it is Frodo's efforts to resist the temptation of the One Ring, an effort he manifests in himself through his own will, not through some blood-borne accident.

Tolkien embodies the essential middle class values, whereas Rowling feels ashamed of her middle class roots and sees them as something to overcome.

See also Trueblood and Twilight as examples of female obsession with Aristocracy.

This is probably why the HP series comes off as muddled. Voldemort's policies would clearly benefit wizards, so long as he wiped out and ruled MM muggles only. But because a woman cannot break out of the social zeitgesit, this thread is never developed.

The British Are Dead said...

Is Lord Voldemort really evil for not respecting the modern society of muggles, one replete with limp wristed leaders, a fecund culture, and a populace more nihilistic than a Ke$ha music video. Is Lord Voldemort truly evil for not respecting the slothy modern Briton who would rather watch some guy kick a ball into a goal while he stuffs his face with chips and ale as his country descends into a multicultural cesspool?

If you were Lord Voldemort, would you really look at Tony Blair or David Cameron, or the Osbournes and say “By golly these people are worth defending and preserving!”? If you do, then you are a more conniving and soulless villain than anything that could emerge from the darkest recesses of JK Rowling’s imagination. Perhaps in the end, Voldemort was right.


Unfortunately he was right. Many British are emigrating and leaving Britain since it has become a hellhole thanks to liberal politicians from all parties (this includes fake "conservatives").

Anonymous said...

Mixing with Muggles does not eliminate the gene. The gene becomes unexpressed, as it is a recessive trait.

After sucessive generations of mixing with muggles the gene is lost and very difficult to surface. If it continues unabated it becomes extinct.

Voldemort has no reason to wage war against other wizards over genetics since everyone is the same genetic makeup.

Yes but where did the original genetic makeup come from? It came from wizards.

Slytherin House has no reason to look down on Hermione's lineage because it did not change the fact that she is still a wizard. Mating with her by any member of Slytherin would result in 4 wizard offspring.

So?

See also Trueblood and Twilight as examples of female obsession with Aristocracy.

It isn't. It's teenage female fantasy.

So, Voldemort certainly has a case against MM muggles, but not Mw muggles, since they will be an important source of wizards given that their are not enough ww expressed wizards to sustain a wizard population without dysgenic breeding.

Dysgenic breeding is needed. I already layed out the solution: full blood wizard mates with muggle born wizard and the half-blood wizard offspring mates with a full-blood wizard. Repeat, repeat, repeat for generations. Most would be 3/4 magical blood but not inbreed.

Tolkien embodies the essential middle class values, whereas Rowling feels ashamed of her middle class roots and sees them as something to overcome.

J.K. Rowling is a SWPL even when she was middle class. She's a white liberal chick and has helped Amnesty International beforehand.

Class warfare is important but one of the main themes is race and heritage. It ain't the class struggle.

Anonymous said...

Off-topic post and so naturally some off-topic replies. But in light of the argument put forward, although it passed me by having seen some of the films (not read the books) the analogy is surely obvious. 1 - Group of people for whom race is important, but in an apparently good way, notwithstanding how ultimately self-concerned that group is. 2 - Group for whom race is important but in an apparently bad way (and the way they are painted this is indeed so). 3 - Everyone else, or muggles, or those outside the select groups of wizards.

Samantha said...

WOOOOOOWWW... This argument is based on HEAPS of completely unfounded and exaggerated statements. So much so that it's nearly impossible to take it seriously in any sense. Nearly...

(my post is long so I'm going to do it in installments)

Just a handful of your basic inconsistencies:

1) Muggle is not necessarily a derogatory name. It's a specification of "human" noting one who has no magical inclination whatsoever. You talk about it as if you are confusing it with a word like "mudblood" or something like that. Perhaps if you ranted about "squib" you would have had a point. Muggle is no more discriminatory than calling someone "Asian" this is unless you have predispositions against Asians and are using the label in order to demean. That would be on you, not the word itself.
-Many times throughout the books the Minister of Magic works closely with the muggle Prime Minister himself. You're blatantly making things up when you make it seem like their operations are based on having plants in muggle government ready to obliviate anyone in need of it.
-The separation of their worlds is not one of disrespect but simple incompatibility. Magic is limited and cannot be used to "solve the world's problems". That mentality is probably why it is so obvious that the worlds should be separate. Many of the heros of the books are muggle born or "half bloods" and nearly all of these characters end up being the most powerful wizards of all- the message being that it's not about your blood but your character.
-Furthermore, the Durselys being cruel and oafish is not as an example of the ignorance of humans but the vulnerability of wizards.

Samantha said...

2) Your spin on the class system.
-First of all, goblins aren't "kept where they belong in Gringotts." The talented and well respected charms professor (and Ravenclaw head of house) at Hogwarts was part goblin (accounting for his short stature). Perhaps I'm putting more stock than I should in someone who is only 'part' goblin but as we all know, one drop...
-You also talk about these class issues as if they are ignored in the book (giving me the sneaking suspicion that you skipped quite a bit of it). Large portions of the book elaborate on the constant struggle for social equality in a world where not only race and socioeconomic issues come in to play but species. Oswald Beamish was a notable Goblin Rights activist. The indentured slavery of house elves is brought up through SPEW (the Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare). The racism against werewolves is touched upon as we are introduced to a caring gentleman, Lupin, who is also part werewolf and faces the challenges of being discriminated against everyday for something he can't help (through this we also get a thoughtful dose of racial(/species?) self-loathing). All of these issues exist in the book and are not ignored in any way shape or form.
- It is openly acknowledged that this is a war for the lesser of two evils. One evil is just glaringly more evil than the other. Under no circumstances does this even remotely bring up the question of "Was Voldemort Right?" It can be compared to American Feminism which boasts it is for the equality of women and yet at it's most basic terms seems to actually be for the equality of white western women. Within this structure, black women can be feminists but it comes with the asterisk of also fighting for the rights of black people in general. Dobby aligning himself with The Order doesn't mean he's disowning his elven heritage and sacrificing himself purely for the rights of his oppressors any more than a black feminist is fighting for white women to have the same rights as white men all with the satisfied understanding that these people have more rights than they do to begin with. You're ignoring what they are not ignoring- the concept of dual identity.

Samantha said...

3) Facts facts facts.
This is less of a philosophical concern and more of a factual discrepancy. Neville being goofily awful at potions is a joke for about three (of the shortest) books tops. Kind of like how some people suck at math. It just wasn't his thing. But he's undeniably known for his excellence in herbology and I rather recall him being a complete bamf come the Battle of Hogwarts. Furthermore, his abysmal potion skills and bumbling-ness are brought to light as a parallel to the supposedly 'great' Harry Potter. Neville was the other baby the prophecy was potentially about. Had Voldemort gone to the Longbottom's house that night the series could have been called "Neville Longbottom and the Blahblahwhatevers." His painful ordinary-ness and fly-under-the-radar-itude are magnified to highlight the whole point of the entire series. It's not what you're born into, it's what you do with yourself. Harry's an unkillable parselmouth because of his circumstances but both he and Neville are good people and thus valiant warriors because of who they are on a philosophical level.

4) Ecofreakingnomics.
Do you realize what would happen if wizards came out True Blood style and were all like "Hey! We possess a veritable endless supply of MAGIC!" Roswellian experimentation aside, the muggle economy would crumble. Economic stability is rooted in human capacity. If it was suddenly possible to transfigure your clothes you'd never buy another outfit. If you could side-along apparate or take port keys then cars, bikes, planes, etc would all become obsolete.
-If you think logically, they are a secret world for the sake of muggles. If wizards were allowed to cavort with muggles constantly, imagine the chaos of just one wizard taking advantage of his magical position. It would be a cinch for any wizard to be the Steve Jobs of the muggle world. And no, not all wizards have no inclination to rule the muggle world in such a way there are just a great deal of laws regarding the matter that are strict as all get-out.

Samantha said...

5) "She never says just who can vote"
-Wrong again! Yes, the balance of power is a racist structure BUT all considered "magical beings" can vote. This is explicitly mentioned in an elaboration on centaur rights when their magical status was changed to "being" meaning "any creature that has sufficient intelligence to understand the laws of the magical community and to bear part of the responsibility in shaping those laws." Ha yes having to objectively qualify for this status as determined by wizards sounds super racist and verging on a '3/5ths of a person' kind of thing. She goes into details about the troubling history of the redefinition of 'beings'. The centaurs inevitably rebuked this status because it didn't include many species with intelligence (merpeople, ghosts, so on) but the point is that the specification exists and it includes goblins, elves, vampires, and other beings that you so readily insist have zero rights.
-Speaking of House Elves, if Voldemort is truly working for the rule of the powerful and magical purity and blah blah then house elves would be at the top of his list. Dumbledore mentions that house elves possess a magic so powerful that it is far beyond Voldemort's own understanding. Should he be fighting for some alternative society wherein he banishes the old hierarchy in favor of the rise of abilites then house elves would have certainly been on his side. He's not about power, he's about his 'own' power. Perhaps he just wasn't aware of the abilities house elves had. Maybe if Hogwarts had a House Elf History Month or something...

Now that I've said all that I want to make it clear that I don't entirely disagree with you. I do however think you've apparated to conclusions that are otherwise impossible to get to and yet you've ended up slinched on the otherside so what's the point in arguing anyway.

It can be argued that Voldemort's aim was ultimately just blatant power and self-serving respect. The whole "pure blood" thing could have been a battle cry with the sole purpose of rousing some passionate masses. He's fully aware that without mixed-relations he wouldn't even exist.

Furthermore, if he truly believed in the sanctity of purebloods he wouldn't kill and torture so many of his followers. Offering Hogwarts an olive branch wasn't him preserving blood but rather building his numbers. His stance on blood purity was a dash of good ole fashioned racism keenly aimed at the blood sensitive in the light of the decline of pure blood populations. The seduction of blood heirarchy was a strong one- even you've been roped in and have found a way to justify Voldemort's actions.

See. Now I've expanded upon the books and made up some stuff too. Anyone can put any twist on it that they want. I wish you would readily admit that your take on things comes with a buy-one-get-one-free crate of salt.

Anonymous said...

Samantha is either:

#1 - A troll
#2 - An idiotic SWPL (aka white liberal) girl

I'm going to have to go with the latter. It's the hamster rationalization going wild with her.

Samantha said...

Lawlz "Anonymous" Why do I have to be "a white liberal girl"?

I'm actually this person: www.RemedialPotions.com -> the black female half of that Harry Potter Wizard Rock band.

Here's a towel to wipe the egg off your face.

Go read a book.

Harley said...

In defense and support of Samantha:
Having read all the books and being decently familiar with JKR's additional information (as well as watched all of the movies), I'm pretty sure that she makes good points all around. I also know Samantha personally and can pretty much guarantee that she can back up everything she has written with examples from text or accepted cannon.
If you are going to make statements of this type (hamster rationalization my arse) please back up your accusations with either statements from the comment you disagree wit, preferably using the actual book text or acknowledged cannon to back up your argument.
I'll thank you in advance to keep your unfounded and childish name-calling to yourself.

Anonymous said...

"WOOOOOOWWW... This argument is based on HEAPS of completely unfounded and exaggerated statements. So much so that it's nearly impossible to take it seriously in any sense. "

"Samantha" is also an expert on Michael Jackson. She has used the words "WOW" and "heaps" many times before. Ignore her please.

Anonymous said...

I'm really unnerved by the IGNORANT assessment of calling someone a troll if they have a well thought out opinion contrary to your own.

Get some sense you two.

You have yet to form any thoughtful critique of your own and instead of saying exactly what is wrong with her opinion- which if you actually read it, assuming you can read, is very little- you start name calling. That's what's wrong with this site and people like you. Valid arguments are rare and far between.

Anonymous said...

@ Anon. July 25, 2011 9:31 AM

Why don't you write on current thread?
Listen I don't really care what unnerves you, if any of us were to write anything contrary to what is preached on YOUR TYPE of website, the majority of commentators would call us TROLLS.
If you don't like the content of the comments posted here, I would advice you not read them; it'll keep you from frothing at the mouth.
Obviously, you don't agree with the views, yet, you do not refute intelligently what we say.
Stop your sanctimonious rants and come up with substance to back up your claims.

Ignorant and Racist are banned words here, I would advice you use the " R " or " I " words instead when posting here.

Anonymous said...

The words "ignorant" and "racist" and banned here and yet Ignorance and Racism are not.

And you want some substantiation of that?

Racism:
-"Samantha is either: #1 - A troll #2 - An idiotic SWPL (aka white liberal) girl. I'm going to have to go with the latter. It's the hamster rationalization going wild with her."

Ignorance:
-The phrase "YOUR TYPE of website"
- Baseless refuting with the only retort being name calling.

Anonymous said...

@ Anon. at July 25, 2011 10:41 PM

You used the forbidden words, so you are deemed " I " and " R ". Of course you can get away with that in the "outside world ". There you can call us something vile and baseless and it goes unnoticed. Here, unfortunately for you, we play by a different set of rules.

"Your type of Website" is were you'll be comforted and be looked upon as a victim of the evil whitey, and that's exactly what we mean by that. You will simply not find that kind of accommodation here. Play by the rules, and everything will be fine.

Go sell your pudding elsewhere Desi!

Stuff Black People Don't Like said...

I don't think Samantha is Desiree. This Web site gets a lot of traffic... not everyone who posts counter-arguments is Desiree.

Anonymous said...

I'm actually this person: www.RemedialPotions.com -> the black female half of that Harry Potter Wizard Rock band.

Go read a book.


I've read Harry Potter and it sucks. A black chick? Couldn't see that coming. *sarcasm*

You're just infuriating as a SWPL. Blacks and their SWPL enablers are becoming ever more alike everyday. *sighs*

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Moldevort resented his PB mother producing him with a MB father and wonders how much more powerful, and accepted, he would have been as a PB wizard

Unknown said...

Never liked HP. Overrated and horribly written.

And good to know Rowling was never poor.

Voldemort was the only character worth mentioning. He was the only character with any flare.

Unknown said...

@ Samantha

Some "facts". All I see is RACIST and SEXIST and VOLDEMORT IS BAD.

Yup. Keep denying race, you bluegum.

Unknown said...

"3) Facts facts facts.
This is less of a philosophical concern and more of a factual discrepancy. Neville being goofily awful at potions is a joke for about three (of the shortest) books tops. Kind of like how some people suck at math. It just wasn't his thing. But he's undeniably known for his excellence in herbology and I rather recall him being a complete bamf come the Battle of Hogwarts. Furthermore, his abysmal potion skills and bumbling-ness are brought to light as a parallel to the supposedly 'great' Harry Potter. Neville was the other baby the prophecy was potentially about. Had Voldemort gone to the Longbottom's house that night the series could have been called "Neville Longbottom and the Blahblahwhatevers." His painful ordinary-ness and fly-under-the-radar-itude are magnified to highlight the whole point of the entire series. It's not what you're born into, it's what you do with yourself. Harry's an unkillable parselmouth because of his circumstances but both he and Neville are good people and thus valiant warriors because of who they are on a philosophical level."

-- What does that have to do with facts? You're pretty much admitting differences exist while saying that they don't.

And I've read HP. There is nothing philosophical about it. Harry is flat as a board and the rest of the characters are useless dorks. The fact that Neville sucks to show the "greatness" of HP isn't good writing - it's awful, because HP is the male version of Rowling.

Nothing what you stated was factual. Aside from bad rhetoric, you cited no philosophy and instead use bad examples from an equally bad book.

"Racism doesn't exist in the books, but Voldemort is racist."

Some facts those are, eh?