Thursday, October 02, 2008

J.K.Rowling: Just what the heck is going on?

Who is the greatest liberatarian evangelist of modern times? Is it Murray Rothbard? No. Not enough people have read the master's works (though they will, eventually, in the same way that Aristotle is still read). Is it Ayn Rand? No. She's just too mad, too statist, and most of her readers are already members of the converted sect of freedom.

In fact, there can only be one winner, in my humble opinion. And that is J.K.Rowling. Why? Because she has emotionally hooked millions of young impressionable readers on a world in which the state is evil, and in which the individual is sacrosanct. She has painted an effective picture of a world which in part succeeds because it has a commodity money and a private education system, and which in part fails because it has an overly bureaucratic ministry of magic which is peopled by stupid and wicked government "fonctionaires" (Percy Weasley, Cornelius Fudge, and Mafalda Hopkirk, to name but a few), who are easily turned by vindictive governmental self interest.

An overly mighty ministry of magic is also easy prey for the sauronic/hitlerian Lord Voldemort, who easily bends its usurpation of natural rights for his own power-crazed Machiavellian ends.

In the final book, state education is also made compulsory (which is painted to be the embodiment of all evil), and the heroic freedom-loving state renegades (such as Harry Potter, who has personally suffered many petty abuses of over-mighty tyrannical government), finally triumph against the odds, while fighting for freedom and individuality in the face of the overwhelmingly powerful Death Eaters, who, dare I say it, represent what in our world would be a collectivist socialist/fascist orthodoxy.

In short, the entire Harry Potter series, although perhaps meanly and small-mindedly vindictive against business people living in Surrey, is perhaps the greatest literary exemplar written since "Lord of the Rings", to have thoroughly poisoned the well of statism in the minds of perhaps billions of children around the world. So well done, Ms Rowling. I am truly grateful.

And to round off the deal, who can also forget perhaps one of the greatest examples of evil ever written, the sweetly officious Dolores Umbridge, a pure Kafkaesque nightmare of saccharine mixed with dullard officiousness and a bureaucratic mendacity framed in a totality of utterly diabolic reptilian-minded viciousness. In fact, the perfect model for all bureaucrats, of all stripes, everywhere. F.A.Hayek would have been proud. And I am sure L.v.Mises would have been quite happy too.

So, aside from the Surrey bashing, just what the hell is going on with J.K.Rowling giving Gordon Brown £1 million pounds, to help boost the Labour Party? Is he not the perfect real-life example of an utterly useless and dangerous Cornelius Fudge? Arrogant, conceited, pompous, stupid, evil, blind, and willing to bend every law and every moral precept to advance both himself and his own self-obsessed idiotic world view; yes, this is that man. So just why is she giving this fool the means to wrap the rest of us in ever more socialist chains? Why is she helping him build a world in which a future real-life Voldemort can take over the world?

Is she schizophrenic? Did all those years of being a welfare queen ruin her mind? How can she write such a fine libertarian diatribe against the abuses of government, while at the same time financially supporting (with the proceeds of the diatribe) a government which aims to crush the rest of us in the same way that Voldemort's Death Eaters wished to crush the free peoples of the wizarding world, via the over-weening abusive power of the state? She apparently earns £3 million pounds a week, and is one of the world's richest women. Is her guilt of this ruining her mind?

In short, just what the heck is going on? If anyone has any answers to this bizarre conundrum, then I am all ears. Please let me know. Especially if your name is J.K.Rowling.

And please Jo, please don't give me any crap about living on welfare. I grew up living on welfare. But I got over it. It would be nice if you could too. And if you are feeling really guilty about having all of that money, then I know a nice man who could take it off your hands to help make you feel better about the insanity of it all. But please, whatever you do, please stop giving money to the Labour Party. You really are better than that.

Give it to the Ludwig von Mises Institute instead, or Lew Rockwell, the true fighters for freedom in this increasingly statist world. Don't just write about freedom being better than statism. Help make it happen.


Anonymous said...

Well done on pointing out the not so hidden messages in the H.P. series.

Truly Rowling has done a lot of good.

If she's buying insurance/paying protection from govt. harassment.... well, I'll give her a pass.

Jack Maturin said...

Protecting yourself from government by helping them oppress the rest of us, doesn't get her a pass in my book, but I can see where you're coming from.

If she does earn £3 million a week, then Gordon Brown will already be getting 40% of that, a cool £1.2 million a week, so that ought to be "enough", surely, to hand over to the mafia to buy their "protection".

I suspect that she is just really confused, and only in fantasy is able to "see" the real world, whereas in the real world, she is able to believe the fantasy that Gordon Brown is intrinsically a good man, especially because she knows him personally.

I have met several people who know Brown personally, and all of them have said that in "private" life, he is extremely charming.

Though Albert Speer, amongst many others, said that in "private" life, Adolf Hitler was also extremely charming! :-)

It would seem that "charming" politicians really do weave a deeply charismatic magic. It would seem that even authors of stories about magic, can be made to fall under the spell.

A Nonny Mouse said...

The welfare queen story is exaggerated, even by Rowling. She began her writing when working for Amnesty International, she continued it when married in Portugal, it took just 9 months on the dole for her to get back on her feet after she left her husband, and that is probably because the ponderous bureaucracy of the British education system meant she had to wait till the beginning of the school year. After that she was teaching and writing. So 'years on the dole' is completely wrong.