Post: #1

I was reading up on JK Rowling's latest virtue signaling when I came across a document that attempts to make the case that she's a front author for the Harry Potter books, and that they were actually written by a team of globalist agents that want to push ideas of family destruction upon the masses. The project is controlled by Jews (who else?).

http://mileswmathis.com/potter.pdf

The background evidence is a bit boring, but here is the "why" of the conspiracy:

Quote:All this is highly suspicious, and leads me to believe Rowling was simply hired to front this project. I would say it is very doubtful she wrote any of it, a better guess being it was written by a committee in Vauxhall, Langley, or elsewhere. In support of that, we find the Harry Potter books selling many of the same points of other Intelligence projects, including the destruction of the family. Harry has no family, being adopted by “muggle” relatives who don't like him and whom he finds both ridiculous and contemptible. He is glad to leave them and go off to a boarding school where he never sees them. So the books are selling an updated version of Plato's The Republic, where children are taken from their parents by the State, divided into classes, and raised to serve the interests of the Elders. Children today are being taught to look upon their own parents as contemptible muggles and upon themselves as a superior class of magicians, who can potentially get whatever they wish with the proper spell. They will be happy to be taken from their witless parents and placed in fortified castles, as long as they are issued fake wands and are presided over by people in black robes. If you think that is a recipe for a healthy society or homelife, you need to cut your fluoride dosage.

[...]

Throughout the entire seven books in the series, “magic” is always just a pointer to Intel. They are the magicians. The agents are wizards in training, and the muggles are civilians. Everything in all the plots has a pretty transparent analogy to something in Intelligence, with Hogwarts being the Intel Academy, and so on.

What strikes me about the Harry Potter series is simply that it's not that good, but was very heavily promoted by every level of media, to the point where adult women were going crazy for it. It almost seemed like a psyop campaign.

A new Harry Potter themed book came out a few months ago, and it wasn't even a book but a transcript of a theater play. It was garbage, but there were still massive amounts of hip and midnight lines.

Quote:Harry Potter benefitted from an unprecedented and Tiger Woods' level of promotion—not coincidentally at the same time he was enjoying his. Not only had no children's book ever been promoted on these levels, no book ever written had been promoted on these levels. Potter was one of the first books to benefit from a mammoth media blitz coordinated by Intelligence to promote its own productions, although others like The Da Vinci Code, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and The Hunger Games soon followed. We may assume Oprah's Book Club came from the same place.

I am giving this theory credence because of the utter simplistic arguments that JK Rowling is giving against the evils of "fascism". She is supposed to be the genius author of one of the most sold book series of all time? Going by my "everything put out by the establishment is a lie" heuristic, I don't think who we think she is.

Post: #2

I don't necessarily see the themes in the book that this person implies.

The book is pretty pro-family in many of the themes and events

The series is largely a revenge tale of a boy who avenges his parents' death. Voldemort is plagued by his family history. Ron's family constitutes many of the supporting characters.

Hermione's family is undeveloped, mostly due to lazy authorship

Post: #3

^Agree with Sonoma that it's a massive stretch to paint Harry Potter as anti-family propaganda. As he points out, a major theme is Harry avenging the death of his parents, and I can add that the parents are said to have died sacrificing themselves for him.

Additionally, there is no theme of looking upon your parents as "contemptible muggles" as the link suggests, since being a magician is passed down genetically in the HP universe (one of the books is even titled "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince").

Quote:I am giving this theory credence because of the utter simplistic arguments that JK Rowling is giving against the evils of "fascism". She is supposed to be the genius author of one of the most sold book series of all time?

One thing I've come to appreciate lately is that people who are geniuses at some things can often be complete morons outside their area(s) of expertise. Almost no one sounds intelligent opining on something he or she knows very little about.

Quote:What strikes me about the Harry Potter series is simply that it's not that good, but was very heavily promoted by every level of media, to the point where adult women were going crazy for it.

You're saying it's not that good from an adult perspective, when the books are written for pre-teens. When I was 12 years old I lapped that shit up.

Post: #4

Okay, I know too much about Potter:

Harry's entire motivation was to avenge his family, he and Dumbledore talk about it extensively at one point. Then he goes on to create his own traditional family with a devoted wife (a virgin who quit her professional Quidditch career to start a family with him) and 3 kids - the first born when Ginny was only 23.

It's a British boarding school novel, of course he's going to go away to school. Even then, Harry's envious of his friends who having loving homes to go back to. In a lot of ways the series idolizes traditional families.

Post: #5

(I can't be bothered editing this for typos.)

Spoilers abound.

The major problem with this theory is the author's analysis hinges on an interpretation of the books that simply doesn't fit what's actually in them.

To preface my rebuttal: Thanks to the fact that the Harry Potter books are in my relatively small audiobook library and I used to work in mining, where I spent all day every day listening to audiobooks while doing my work, I've "read" the books at least thirty times. I'm intimately familiar with them. I'm also a lifelong lover of fiction and a fiction writer myself; I've read thousands of novels and I've been studying storycraft for most of my life.

I'm not going to address all the background stuff. I don't care to spend a load of time doing the research to check the sources. I'm going to focus entirely on the claims made about the actual story (taking the series as one complete story) to see if they hold up.

Quote:In support of that, we find the Harry Potter books selling many of the same points of other Intelligence projects, including the destruction of the family. Harry has no family, being adopted by “muggle” relatives who don't like him and whom he finds both ridiculous and contemptible.

Harry spends the entire series longing for family. One of the key themes is family and how tragic it was that Harry's parents sacrificed themselves to protect him out of love. His mother's sacrifice is the whole reason he's even alive and it protects him time and again throughout the series.

Harry is very envious of Ron and his large, loving family. If family is torn down in Harry Potter, why is the strength of the Weasley family showcased so heavily? Why is Harry constantly yearning for a family of his own? He basically becomes part of the Weasley family--explicitly stated by Molly Weasley in the beginning of Order of the Phoenix as being "as good as her son". He ultimately even marries into the Weasleys when he hooks up with Ginny at the end.

Why is traditional marriage and early childbearing amongst the women shown to be the norm? It's normal for the mothers in the Harry Potter universe to start popping out kids soon after school. Stay at home moms are showcased as well. I don't think divorce is ever mentioned at all (no examples come to mind). If there's a non-intact family unit, it's because a spouse died. There's nothing in the story to suggest JK Rowling is against the classic nuclear family.

In fact, when Lupin is scared of having passed his werewolf curse onto his son and seeks to join the Trio in the horcrux hunt, Harry calls him out as a coward for abandoning his wife and child, shaming Lupin into returning home where he belongs. Lupin later explicitly thanks Harry for doing so.

There are several other pro-family examples I could lay out as well. Hagrid and Grawp is an easy one. Even the Malfoys, as shitty as they are, are ultimately shown to be more concerned about each other than their greed for power. When it comes down to it, at the end of Book 7 (Deathly Hallows), Lucius and Narcissa care much more about their son than their own power. The theme behind all this is "love and goodness win", basically.

The people who chase power and cast aside family lose, the best examples being Bellatrix Lestrange and Voldemort himself.

Quote:He is glad to leave them and go off to a boarding school where he never sees them. So the books are selling an updated version of Plato's The Republic, where children are taken from their parents by the State, divided into classes, and raised to serve the interests of the Elders.

One wonders if the author of the theory even read the books.

Harry is happy to leave the Dursleys because they suck. They're terrified of appearing abnormal because they worry it will damage their social standing, and try to squash the wizardishness out of Harry by treating him horribly.

Nobody has to attend school. The parents may choose to teach their children themselves if they want, they just mostly don't in Britain that we see. However, since the books do revolve around Harry and the people he meets at school, it's entirely possible that plenty of kids do get taught at home.

And, the schools are privately run. Hogwarts is repeatedly and explicitly shown not to be under the control of the government for most of the series. When the government attempts a coup at the school in Book 5 (Order of the Phoenix) the very school itself--a sort of pseudo-living entity in a way--resists their effort, both directly and indirectly.

I'm not sure how the kids are supposed to be broken up into classes. Because they're sorted into school houses? That scheme is directly lifted from how British boarding schools actually work in the real world.

Also, students get a remarkable amount of leeway in choosing their own courses of study. Nobody forces them to learn anything specific. So how are they being "raised to serve the interests of the elders"?

Quote:Children today are being taught to look upon their own parents as contemptible muggles and upon themselves as a superior class of magicians, who can potentially get whatever they wish with the proper spell. They will be happy to be taken from their witless parents and placed in fortified castles, as long as they are issued fake wands and are presided over by people in black robes. If you think that is a recipe for a healthy society or homelife, you need to cut your fluoride dosage.

While I do worry that Harry Potter promotes a bit too much magical thinking as a consequence of its handwavy magical system, I think this is wildly exaggerated.

Quote:Harry Potter is often compared to The Lord of the Rings, but the comparison could not be less apt. Potter is actually an inversion of LOTR. In LOTR, the heroes are hobbits—short and unattractive common folk living on the land. They are the muggles of their time and place. But Potter reverses this, making common folk less than useless. Without a few high-born wizards like Harry to fight for them, the muggles would soon be wiped out. But in Potter, it is hard to understand why this wouldn't be good riddance. Tolkien made the hobbits ignorant and provincial, but through the actions and explanations of both Gandalf and Frodo, we understand why they are worth saving from the Dark Lord. In Potter, we have none of that, the muggles as described being completely expendable. This is no accident, since it is exactly how the current Elders see it.

Okay, I'm going to have to unpack this a bit to address it.

1. Comparison to LOTR:

The only things LOTR and Harry Potter have in common is they're both fantasy--not even the same subgenre--and they both have similar basic story arcs. They're both classic Hero's Journey tales. And that's all the comparison you can make. So most of what he said is just convenient shoehorning, frankly.

2. Muggles are useless.

Ridiculous. The wizards protect them because the muggles have no defense against magic. But some wizards, like Mr. Weasley, often remark on how clever muggles are to get along without magic. The way it's presented it is often actually a way of showing how ignorant wizards are, and how helpless they would be without their magic.

3. Muggles are described as completely expendable.

Again, ridiculous. The villains treat muggles as no better than game animals, but the heroes do not. Is the theorist saying we should take the antagonists' message as the true one of the story? Many of the more-or-less good wizards don't really care for muggles much, but many others defend muggles with great ardor.

Quote:This is also useful in understanding muggles: If, by unfortunate means, non-magical people do happen to observe the working of magic, the Ministry of Magic sends Obliviators to cast Memory Charms upon them causing them to forget the event. Just substitute “agent” for “Obliviator”, “non-agent” for “non-magical person”, “Intel hoax” for “magical event”, CIA for “Ministry of Magic”, and “propaganda blitz” for Memory Charm.

The wizards want to be left alone, as is explicitly stated in about chapter four of the first book. If the muggles in general knew about them, they would be bugging them all the time for magical solutions to their problems. And, though it's unstated as such, many muggles would probably want to kill the wizards. Witch burning is explicitly mentioned in the middle of the series. Perhaps the wizards don't want muggles with modern technology attacking them.

Many of the consequences of a hidden wizard society living amongst muggles are not explored, but that's because they're books aimed at teenagers. Heinlein didn't go all-in on his social commentary in his young adult books either.

To repeat what I said before, reading this theory about the content of the books and their secret meaning makes me wonder if the theorist even read them.

Other points...

Is JK Rowling a genius? No, she's not. The plots of the Harry Potter books had a number of minor-to-significant holes in them, frankly. She had to do some retconning because she clearly didn't think of some interesting ideas until later in the series. But what she excelled at was creating an interesting, vivid world with excellent characters. The world is very good, but the characters make the series.

Her success is proof of nothing sinister. For one thing, the books didn't even take off as quickly as the theorist claims. Philosopher's Stone, the first, sold about 300k copies after 2 years. That's very good to be sure, but it's not out of line with what a number of other new authors do every year. Much shittier books than any of the Harry Potter novels have taken off quicker than that. As I recall, Harry Potter didn't really blow up until book 3. But I did not look up the numbers to be sure.

There's nothing about the stories that make me think they were written by more than one person. There's no "written by committee" feel to them, certainly, and they have all the hallmarks of having been written by a new author who gained skill along the way. Her later books are much stronger than the first couple, but her style was consistent throughout. I'm very good at spotting a different voice in a series; it's obvious when someone else did the bulk of the writing. There was no sign of that in the Harry Potter series.

I'm running out of steam here and some of the points I was going to make slipped my mind, but here's a good one that always struck me as interesting about the Harry Potter books: in effect, every wizard in the story is armed with a lethal weapon at all times. There's no effort to strip wizards of their ability to do lethal damage, the way governments are always trying to ban and confiscate guns and other weapons. There's never any mention of some kind of detuned "civilian wand" that can only cast certain spells. So it's as if every wizard was wandering around with a full arsenal of weapons at all times, as long as they had their wands. Is that the sort of society a shadow cabal of statists would want to push?

To summarize, I think the theorist sees what he wants to see in Harry Potter and doesn't seem all that familiar with the work to begin with. To my mind, Harry Potter does a great deal of good in getting young people interested in reading. I guarantee JK Rowling is responsible for many more avid readers than government schools that force kids to read utter dreck that's boring and halfway incomprehensible. Government schools are excellent at convincing kids that reading sucks.

...And since a love of reading is a major gateway to questioning authority--because you don't need to be told things anymore and will find out if the authorities are full of shit on your own--I kind of doubt a committee bent on controlling the youth and breaking up the family would really encourage a love of reading.


Edit to add about JK Rowling: I've bitched on the forum before about her virtue signaling. She's been pulling shit like that for years. She loves to retcon her own work after the fact to make them more in line with SJW ideals. For example, Dumbledore is gay. Wat? That was not demonstrated anywhere in the series. I figured he was basically an ascetic intellectual type. I think she came out a couple years ago saying Hermoine was black or something too. Eh? Then why was she cast as a fricking white girl in the movies, and why were all the other black characters in the series explicitly described as black, but Hermoine wasn't?

Her social justice retconning shenanigans are retarded, and I wish she'd stop adulterating the work.

Post: #6

I'm ready to accept that the "attacks on traditional family" angle does not hold water.

All that's left from the original theory is the purported inventions of her family and school history.

Post: #7

Quote:Nobody has to attend school. The parents may choose to teach their children themselves if they want, they just mostly don't in Britain that we see. However, since the books do revolve around Harry and the people he meets at school, it's entirely possible that plenty of kids do get taught at home.

It is spelled out explicitly. I recall in the last book that the topic of homeschooling comes up: it's something rarely practiced in the setting, and Voldermort's first act (literally) is to ban homeschooling so that he has full control over brainwashing the children.

Post: #8

I thank JK Rowling for giving me something that made me childhood so much better and gifting me with an amazing fictional and magical world. Nowadays I don't have time to bother reading bullshit and flame wars people post on Twitter.

@weambulance: That was a great post. I can tell you really know your stuff and are really good at analyzing written works. If you have written books or do ever write one, I would love to read it.

Post: #9

I also should point that it's not entirely uncommon. a lot of the people involved in the early counterculture movement (like Tim Leary, Crowley, Alduous Huxley, etc) were heavily involved with the Deep State by their own admission and/or came from families that were heavily tied to those actors.

To my knowledge Rowling doesn't exhibit a lot of the red flags typical with such people nor does her family.

Post: #10

Quote:I am giving this theory credence because of the utter simplistic arguments that JK Rowling is giving against the evils of "fascism". She is supposed to be the genius author of one of the most sold book series of all time? Going by my "everything put out by the establishment is a lie" heuristic, I don't think who we think she is.

I don't really see it. Boarding school novels and orphaned children are staples of English Children's Literature going as far back as the Victorian Era. When the Children weren't orphaned outright, they were either sent out of London away from bombing, (a common thread during the war years), or the parents were little-seen and rarely-discussed.

I read parts of the novels aloud to my nephew - taking shifts with my brother in law and sister so only have vague memories of it... doesn't it all boil down to his parent's love conquering all and keeping him safe, with an overarching plot that amounts to wagging a finger against the idea of any class of person being better than any other class of person, and some standard high school popularity drama thrown on top of it?

Large chunks of it are pre-existing mythology (trolls, hippogriffs, centaurs, werewolves), and what is original, (the soul sucking ghost things; the concept of killing people splitting your souls only when it suits the plot; and that fucking stupid sport they play), is largely inconsistent, badly-thought out blather.

It's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect a woman of mediocre intelligence to write, and exactly the sort of thing I'd expect female educators of mediocre intelligence to push on their students, and exactly the sort of thing I'd expect adult women of mediocre intelligence to read.


It fits in well with other children's book series of poor quality that have been enormously popular in my lifetime, (Geronimo Stilton, Goosebumps, Choose Your Own Adventure, The Babysitter's Club, Sweet Valley High, Enid Blyton). People universally prefer to read undemanding shit, and Harry Potter is as undemanding as it gets. Of course Rowling is a moron.

Out of curiousity, I looked up sales. Rowling has sold about 504 million books. Goosebumps was 350 million. Impressive? Not really in the scheme of things. The Berenstain/stein Bears have sold 250 million, and that's without a high budget series of movies behind them. Rowling is still 95 million books behind Enid Blyton - (Famous Five, Noddy, The Faraway Tree, The Secret Seven, The Wishing Chair, St Clares AND Malory Towers - both boarding school series where each novel is a year in the children's school lives). Blyton's books are as traditionally-moral as they come, to the degree that she's much loathed by schools and the BBC and constantly-parodied by leftist comedians, who will never come anywhere near her popularity.

They're still at it, even today:



My Famous Five books from the 1940's have Anne sniffing about how 'dirty' the Gypsies look, and how 'she feels as if she can smell them from here', which is far more amusing than anything a modern comedian can come up with.

To further put things into perspective: remember, Barbara Cartland has sold twice as many books as Rowling, and Danielle Steel, Sidney Sheldon and Harold Robbins are ahead of her sales as well... all of which are undemanding shit for morons.

Something else I just noticed - the sales of the Harry Potter series is listed on wikipedia as encompassing 7 books and 5 supplementary books. The first book sold 107 million copies, meaning the remaining 393 million sales are split amongst the other 11 books. Obviously, a lot of people didn't bother reading past the first one. If they're Psy-Ops, they're not particularly-successful.

As for Rowling, she's a formerly-working class single mother (i.e. trash) now trying to move among the landed gentry class and acting like she belongs there, hence the plastic surgery and the furious signaling of their globalist values, none of which will make any difference in their perception of her as being (crinkle the nose) 'New Money'. Remember, she claimed the know-it-all Emma Watson character was a self-insert, but in classic female Typist Mary Sue fashion, she actually makes Watson competent.

Post: #11

Interesting.

She has been really silly lately.

Post: #12

-dupe

Post: #13

I too am/was a big fan of the Harry Potter series. Far too juvenile now, but I loved them when I was a teenager.

I'm not surprised that JK Rowling is an outspoken purveyor of SJW/leftist values. Fiction authors tend to be massive idealists that prefer fantasy to reality so much that they constructed entire fake worlds to live in. That tracks perfectly with leftist ideologies.

Post: #14

The Harry Potter series displays a seriously deep understanding of historical mythology and human archetypes and I've recently become a little suspicious of this dumb bitch on twitter.

Disney's The Lion King took hundreds of people collectively to write and produce.

As a society one of the most expensive things we frequently produce are movies. Hundreds of millions of dollars each, so to call them juvenile is short sighted.

Post: #15

FretDancer Wrote:@weambulance: That was a great post. I can tell you really know your stuff and are really good at analyzing written works. If you have written books or do ever write one, I would love to read it.

Thanks for the kind words.

I have some short pieces--8,000 to 20,000 words--that I'm nearly ready to publish under a new pen name, and I'm about 30k words into a novel, but I've been kinda dragging my feet lately. I've been working on other projects instead, doing a lot more programming than writing.

I'm trying to write fast paced, interesting adventure stories that will appeal to young men, and which will hopefully also feed them some truth without being preachy. John Ringo meets Larry Correia sort of stuff, pure modern pulp fiction. Can't let the blue pill masculinity-is-toxic types fight the culture war unopposed forever.

(02-15-2017 12:02 AM)Peregrine Wrote:  I too am/was a big fan of the Harry Potter series. Far too juvenile now, but I loved them when I was a teenager.

I'm not surprised that JK Rowling is an outspoken purveyor of SJW/leftist values. Fiction authors tend to be massive idealists that prefer fantasy to reality so much that they constructed entire fake worlds to live in. That tracks perfectly with leftist ideologies.

Funny you should say that. I've been meaning to post this clip for ages. Bill Whittle from a few years ago (it's short):

Post: #16

(02-15-2017 12:12 AM)Sooth Wrote:  The Harry Potter series displays a seriously deep understanding of historical mythology and human archetypes and I've recently become a little suspicious of this dumb bitch on twitter.

Disney's The Lion King took hundreds of people collectively to write and produce.

I'm not sure what your point is, could you clarify?

The Lion King had three major writers; everyone else was involved in other aspects of the production. And for what it's worth, when it comes to writing stories collaborative work is quite a lot harder than working alone.

Post: #17

JK Rowling was a divorced single mother living "in poverty" with her small daughter in Edinburgh, Scotland when she "wrote" the first book. I always found her life a bullshit rags to riches feminist empowered triumph life story, that seemed way too good to be true. It most probably is.

I find this theory has credence.

Most of all it makes the occult and black magic seem "cool" in the eyes of children.
100 years ago and before stories we told our children had morals that encouraged them to be good people and respect their parents and consider the consequences of thier actions.

The Harry Potter books do none of that except get kids thinking way too much about using spells and black magic as a way to satisfy all their selfish desires, rather than through discipline, hard work, faith and self improvement.

For me, its just another part of the political elites satan worshipping, society corrupting agenda.

Post: #18

Quote:For me, its just another part of the political elites satan worshipping, society corrupting agenda.

Mercenary, judging by your other posts I think you are heavily biased.

Quote:Most of all it makes the occult and black magic seem "cool" in the eyes of children.
100 years ago and before stories we told our children had morals that encouraged them to be good people and respect their parents and consider the consequences of thier actions.

I really fail to see how the Harry Potter plot and characters encourage people to disrespect their parents?

Post: #19

(02-15-2017 02:34 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  JK Rowling was a divorced single mother living "in poverty" with her small daughter in Edinburgh, Scotland when she "wrote" the first book.

I'm not sure what your issue is with this? She took 5-6 years to do ~100-125 hours of work.

Quote:Most of all it makes the occult and black magic seem "cool" in the eyes of children.
100 years ago and before stories we told our children had morals that encouraged them to be good people and respect their parents and consider the consequences of thier actions.

The Harry Potter books do none of that except get kids thinking way too much about using spells and black magic as a way to satisfy all their selfish desires, rather than through discipline, hard work, faith and self improvement.

And I honestly have no idea how you got those ideas if you actually read the books. You might as well be saying KISS stands for Knights in Satan's Service, Dungeons and Dragons is a gateway to Satanism, and video games cause kids to go on killing sprees.

Post: #20

More info here:

Religious debates over the Harry Potter series

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_...ter_series


The books also promote homosexuality to children through the character of Dumbledore.

Post: #21

(02-14-2017 07:44 PM)Roosh Wrote:  I was reading up on JK Rowling's latest virtue signaling when I came across a document that attempts to make the case that she's a front author for the Harry Potter books, and that they were actually written by a team of globalist agents that want to push ideas of family destruction upon the masses. The project is controlled by Jews (who else?).

http://mileswmathis.com/potter.pdf

The background evidence is a bit boring, but here is the "why" of the conspiracy:

Quote:All this is highly suspicious, and leads me to believe Rowling was simply hired to front this project. I would say it is very doubtful she wrote any of it, a better guess being it was written by a committee in Vauxhall, Langley, or elsewhere. In support of that, we find the Harry Potter books selling many of the same points of other Intelligence projects, including the destruction of the family. Harry has no family, being adopted by “muggle” relatives who don't like him and whom he finds both ridiculous and contemptible. He is glad to leave them and go off to a boarding school where he never sees them. So the books are selling an updated version of Plato's The Republic, where children are taken from their parents by the State, divided into classes, and raised to serve the interests of the Elders. Children today are being taught to look upon their own parents as contemptible muggles and upon themselves as a superior class of magicians, who can potentially get whatever they wish with the proper spell. They will be happy to be taken from their witless parents and placed in fortified castles, as long as they are issued fake wands and are presided over by people in black robes. If you think that is a recipe for a healthy society or homelife, you need to cut your fluoride dosage.

[...]

Throughout the entire seven books in the series, “magic” is always just a pointer to Intel. They are the magicians. The agents are wizards in training, and the muggles are civilians. Everything in all the plots has a pretty transparent analogy to something in Intelligence, with Hogwarts being the Intel Academy, and so on.

What strikes me about the Harry Potter series is simply that it's not that good, but was very heavily promoted by every level of media, to the point where adult women were going crazy for it. It almost seemed like a psyop campaign.

A new Harry Potter themed book came out a few months ago, and it wasn't even a book but a transcript of a theater play. It was garbage, but there were still massive amounts of hip and midnight lines.

Quote:Harry Potter benefitted from an unprecedented and Tiger Woods' level of promotion—not coincidentally at the same time he was enjoying his. Not only had no children's book ever been promoted on these levels, no book ever written had been promoted on these levels. Potter was one of the first books to benefit from a mammoth media blitz coordinated by Intelligence to promote its own productions, although others like The Da Vinci Code, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and The Hunger Games soon followed. We may assume Oprah's Book Club came from the same place.

I am giving this theory credence because of the utter simplistic arguments that JK Rowling is giving against the evils of "fascism". She is supposed to be the genius author of one of the most sold book series of all time? Going by my "everything put out by the establishment is a lie" heuristic, I don't think who we think she is.

Its an interestng topic. I've looked at the so called "JK Rowling phenomenon" not least because I am working on my first novel.

1)Firstly, plagiarism is nothing new in writing. I know a couple of guys who basically wrote the British A.llo Al.lo stories, yet had them stolen by a famous pair of chancers who claim to have written many TV series. I read that another book ALSO had a wizard called Harry Potter BEFORE Rowling! There are other strange occurrences like this too.

What often happens is that editorial teams write alot of books like Rowling's. For instance, Star Wars was FAR FAR different to the script George Lucas had been punting round Hollywood.

2)There's something very "standardbearer-ish" about Rowling. Rags to riches, or more likely BLAGS (ie bullshit) to riches.
Its probably a lot like how people are used as fronts for big businesses eg Jessica Alba and her (LMAO) "business genius".

Interestingly, if Rowling wrote the books on the dole nowadays in a cafe certain things would most like happen. First, she'd be kicked out of the cafe (a Starbucks or similar, no doubt in 2017!) for not buying enough coffees. Second, she'd be classed as trying to evade "availability for work" and have her benefits stopped if she didn't take a zero hours contract, or go for some crappy training in a dead end job. Potter would be dead before he was born!

3)Intelligence, story writing, art, "magic", NLP and "brainwashing" etc all have an overlap. You only need to watch Derren Brown the mind magician to see how we are so susceptible to brainwashing. And our guard is especially down when we invest time in trying to get into a story. Talk of magic automatically brings up Pagan and Pre Christian stuff... and ofcourse Satanism or "Left hand path Paganism" etc. Its a huge topic, so maybe I'll address some of it in a separate post.

4)Rowling isn't a "Jewish" project. Sure there may be some Jews involved in Potter, but there's lots of powerful connected Christians and Agnostics etc too. Much of the Potter work reads a little like a "medley" of Ancient/Classical mythology. She hasn't "reinvented the wheel" in any way.

5)Undoubtedly the elites choose certain art, or even pop crap to promote wider agendas. We may not see for many years how it all coordinates, but it IS the reason why some writers/artists are "the chosen ones" for mega marketing.

I'm sure 50 Shades of Grey is about promoting "BDSM" as "the new gay". The ultimate objective is "sexualised domination of the masses", IMO. For instance, notice how Margaret Thatcher had a type of "sexualised domination" over her colleagues (and she looked like a pig too!). To get this type of soft dictatorship will take many years, but thats the plan - along with incest and forms of paedophilia being promoted.

6)Rowling is clearly a "SJW" of Hitlary Clinton/Angela Merkel-esque proportions. And that must surely be a reason why she was a "chosen one" over so many capable wizard book writers or apparent writers.

Post: #22

Here's an example of what I think is the targetting techniques that novelists etc use.

Anyone who's done "affirmations" eg Tony Robbins, or "The Law of Attraction" etc will know about meditating starting with the phrase "I am..." For instance, "I am confident. I am a winner in life " etc. Affirmations can work well, to increase our abilities, confidnce etc. But there is a danger with them if we drop our guard.

Well the Neuro Linguistic Programming aspect is trying to connect words with energy, and with emotions and then with action. So we see that positive energy stolen for other uses. For instance we might see an advert which reads "I am a BMW driver". Or "I am a progressive woman" - cue picture of successful businesswoman and a ballot with Hillary Clinton's name.
We saw it with the "I am Charlie Hebdo" and "I am Ukraine" campaigns. It seduces people just because of the positive emotion that had been created YEARS before with the "I am...." words. The seeds are planted, and years later the crop is reaped.

But the above is the most obvious example possible. Much programming by intel services, elites, Hollywood etc is FAR more subtle, far more persistent in ways our conscious mind will really struggle to detect... unless we have learned the techniques ourselves.

Add in hyponosis, internet memes, or Potter film images and the whole thing becomes even more powerful.
Its funny, a book about magic... could actually use "MAGIC" on its readers!!!!

With this power, its clear why the "powers that be" want to control everything about Rowling/Potter.

Infact, (to rephrase an old Guinness advert), if Rowling hadn't existed... they'd have to INVENT it!

Post: #23

(Again, I'm not editing out the typos)

From the linked PDF:

Quote:When I say Potter was one of the first, I do not mean it was the first book promoted by Intelligence, of course. Intel has been successfully promoting its books from the beginning, and it had already hit early peaks with Bulwer-Lytton, H. Rider Haggard, and many others in the 19th century.

I'd bet a fair chunk of change this guy hasn't read a word of H. Rider Haggard's work. Haggard was one of the forefathers of early 20th century pulp fiction. He died in the 1920s but he pioneered a whole subgenre of adventure fiction, which of course includes all sorts of evil patriarchalism and positive portrayals of masculinity. Haggard was the guy who wrote the Allan Quatermain novels, if that rings any bells.



He was rather less attractive in the books. But you might as well say Mark Twain, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and Jules Verne were all controlled by a shadowy cabal of media mongers if you're going to call out H. Rider Haggard that way. GMAFB.

The fundamental problem with the theory, as I already demonstrated, is the work our friendly theorist held up as a shining example of subversion is just a really shitty choice compared with literature that was already available for promotion before Rowling put pen to paper for the first time.

Why didn't the Shadowy Cabal of Media Mongers pick an established author to push their message, if the push is all it takes to become hugely successful?

For example, Mercedes Lackey is a straight up SJW. Her most famous series, the Valdemar books, has both normalized homosexuality--using a sexy term for it and everything, I think it's shey-a-chern or something like that--and intelligent familiars (classic witchcraft reference). There's also the occasional casual bisexuality practiced by normally hetero people, as if sexuality is entirely fluid. Various types of magic are ubiquitous throughout the various series. She loves her strong female characters, there doesn't seem to be much focus on family or children and there's certainly no sense of traditional gender roles. In later works, she apparently started actively addressing gender roles but I didn't read any of that stuff.

And as I recall, when young people are chosen by their magic horse familiars to become Heralds, they literally do leave their families to train to become agents of the state!

Lackey had her famous Vanyel series, The Last Herald Mage--the protagonist is an incredibly handsome, tragic, rejected-by-his-father, gay musician super-wizard with a magic horse familiar--completed well before the first Harry Potter book was done. That series was published between 1989 and 1991.



Mercedes Lackey is just an example off the top of my head. I guarantee if you go looking, you'll find much worse examples than that. Why weren't any of those authors chosen as the beneficiaries of such generous patronage as Rowling supposedly got? Lackey hasn't been unsuccessful, but she's written over 140 novels and has only sold about 4% as many total copies as Rowling. I doubt she's worth more than about $5-8 million after all that work pushing her dyscivic bullshit, since she works on the garbage author-fucking traditional publishing model.

Jim Butcher's Dresden Files series also fits the claims made by our friendly theorist quite a lot better than Harry Potter. I doubt anyone with a clue thinks Butcher is a shadowy cabal front man in disguise. He just unfortunately made Harry Dresden a total beta and pedestalized the cunty Lieutenant Murphy.

There are plenty of outright SJW authors out there and none of them are a tenth as successful as Rowling because their work usually sucks balls. John Scalzi was picked as a chosen one by Tor and given a multimillion dollar contract for 13 (oh shit numerology!) books and as far as I can tell he hasn't written a damn thing since.

The problem with having SJWs for champions is they're mentally unstable, unreliable whackjobs.

On the other hand, all evidence points to Rowling becoming a nutty SJW after she finished the Harry Potter series. So all the SJW bullshit is shoehorned into her expanded universe work, not the original books. And since she's not as batshit as George Lucas, I don't think she'll ever go back and revise her work to include her dumbass after-the-fact notions.

Really, I think the theorist just chose a popular and moderately controversial work, decided it was bad and being pushed by the Shadowy Cabal of Media Mongers--apparently without bothering to read the books--and then backfilled his argument from there.

Post: #24

This reminds me of when Reverend Jerry Falwell was telling parents not to allow their children to watch Teletubbies because the purple "gay Tinky Winky was bad for children." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/276677.stm

Post: #25

(02-15-2017 12:12 AM)Sooth Wrote:  The Harry Potter series displays a seriously deep understanding of historical mythology and human archetypes and I've recently become a little suspicious of this dumb bitch on twitter.

I don't see it. I'd argue that the series displays a Basic Bitch understanding of historical mythology: her fantasy world is populated by bog standard fantasy creatures (giants, trolls, goblins, centaurs etc) already well-known to fantasy readers. Perhaps she even kept a Monster Manual handy. I was thinking that "OK, the Dementors are sort of original," but then I thought about it more and thought, no, they're really just Wraiths. Specifically, Ringwraiths.

Even the McGuffin of the first book was the Philosopher's Stone, which isn't an obscure concept, despite the American retitling.

Which meant, I didn't find most of what she wrote particularly interesting or inspiring - I read a hell of a lot of books as a child - and thought that was sort of the point: she'd cribbed from enough children's classics to create an Uber-Children's book.

You start off with an orphan, (Late Regency and Victorian Children's literature), trapped in a cruel environment with hideous caregivers and exaggerated social satire, (Roald Dahl), whom discovers there's a parallel magic world (CS Lewis, Enid Blyton, Lewis Carroll, Judith Spearing) amongst the humans, but unseen by them. Transport to the magic world involves the use of mundane, everyday objects used in a magic light (CS Lewis, Enid Blyton, Mary Norton, PL Travers), and the orphan arrives at Boarding School (Enid Blyton, Frank Richards, Angela Brazil, Jill Murphy, Roald Dahl, Mordecai Richler) where the majority of characters have on-the-nose nomenclature (Richard Hargreaves, Roald Dahl, Charles Dickens) that give the plot away. There's a Big Evil that wants to destroy the hero (every fairytale ever). The consumption of food by children is described in endless, pedantic detail (Enid Blyton, CS Lewis). Plot solutions involve games and riddles and mirrored language (Lewis Carroll, Enid Blyton, Norton Juster), and a much maligned adversary turns out to be innocent (Roald Dahl).

In a way, I guess she knew what kids like from what they read, and I could understand her success, particularly-given that the setup lead itself to serialization and thus trigger the human need to collect them all. (CS Lewis, Enid Blyton, Carolyn Keene, and too many others to mention).

In her defense, she has strength exactly where you'd expect a woman to do so with their higher social intelligence - the character interactions and motivations. Note that none of that takes great intelligence, as such. Would anyone call a soap opera writer a genius?

I honestly don't see the appeal of her world, even through a child's eyes. It swings between utter-bleakness to teeth-clenching tweeness at the drop of a hat - I'd be cuntpunting house elves left, right and centre - and being sent to boarding school was an eternal childhood threat for children my age, not something you'd long for, because everyone knew that was where you went when your parents didn't love you, and you were going to get diddled whilst you were there.

For the record, this was my favourite book as a child: