“The wizards are not really written as a master race; they are written as an aristocracy, an intellectual and priestly elite. Most of the Death Eaters are “old money” English families, jealous of their wealth and status against a “new-money” common-born wizard. And Rowling, propelled from wife-of-the-state single mother welfare slave into the ranks of the very rich by the success of her first novel, is certainly motivated by this ressentiment. The muggle-born represent a “natural nobility” that has been invited into the upper classes meritocratically through the public schooling process. In other words, Rowling is not arguing for equality, she is arguing for the replacement of a reactionary elite by a new, caring, socialist elite, one which, in her unicorns-and-flowers politics, is laissez-faire and more or less isolates itself from the Muggles. “
I was at best mildly entertained by Rowling when I read her first book, nearly twenty years ago. I felt no desire to read the sequels but watched all of the films, enjoying them mostly for the traditional aesthetics and Gary Oldman. As I became politically aware, I came to detest her. She is in every sense predictable; hence, she is beloved of NPCs.
A single mother who apparently made disastrous relationship choices, worked for Amnesty International, and was described by all who knew her as unexceptional; suddenly, like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, elevated to wealth and celebrity, in her case due to a mediocre Young Adult novel.
All she would need, to complete the picture, would be a post in Goldman Sachs and membership of the Council on Foreign Relations or NXIVM, and a few photos of her beaming with a Clinton or George Soros or Jeffrey Epstein.
I wonder if this predictable women has any inkling, amidst her mansions and celebrity, of her actual vacuity; of why she was chosen and suddenly became so wealthy, so successful. If so, I doubt it would perturb her, for after all she can always hire private security to guard her estates, while the rest of Europe burns.
