Spying Game Philosophy - The Phoenix must die!

[msbeadsley]

No: HPFGUIDX 81142

> Kneasy:
> Well, yes. Useful stuff, immortality - superficially at least. If 
> he gets true immortality he can't lose. He can always wait 
> everybody else out.

Sandy:
But then he's dealing with a whole new set of "everybody else." And 
Voldemort knows the value of knowing his enemies; as Bellatrix (then 
identified in the narrative as "a harsh female voice") says when 
Harry comes charging into the MoM after Sirius, "The Dark Lord always 
knows!"

> Kneasy:
> Put his feet up, start another long Russian novel, they'll all die 
> soon enough, of natural causes too! Look! Clean hands!  So why the 
> rush? Why now? Especially as he seems to be approaching immortality 
> one way or another already.
> 
> It's the Philosophers Stone.  DD had (has?)  it. Why? Safekeeping, 
> so they say. Oh, really? DD has it because he was Nick Flamel's 
> partner. And why would these two  have one of those, unless to  use 
> it? Flamel did, we know that. What about DD?

Sandy:
I seem to remember that JKR said in an interview that Dumbledore had 
not worked on the Stone with Flamel in spite of having been his 
alchemy partner. It's not clear that "those two" had the stone. Canon 
says it was Flamel's; so Dumbledore had merely provided security. 
Canon seems to express that Dumbledore is not 600+ years old: in Cos, 
Riddle's diary shows Dumbledore just fifty years earlier with "long, 
sweeping auburn hair." By the opening of PS/SS, Dumbledore's hair 
is "silver." If Flamel has been taking the Stone's elixir long enough 
to attain 600+ years, then why hasn't Dumbledore? Or does one go from 
red fox to silver over fifty years even with it? (One Greek myth 
about immortality is a wink, wink, nudge, nudge: the goddess who 
wanted her mortal love to live forever was granted his immortality, 
but forgot to ask for his eternal youth...and ended up with something 
as curled up and wispy as a grasshopper.)

> Kneasy:
> Voldy wants the stone as much to deny it to Albus as he does for 
> his own use. If DD uses it, then he wins by default instead of 
> Vodemort. Voldy doesn't trust anybody. He certainly doesn't trust 
> the general perception that DD is a simple, kind-hearted, may the 
> best man win, Queensbury Rules softy who would never, ever use the 
> stone. Oh, no. DD intends to  win. However he can.

Sandy:
Where does canon say that Voldy wants to deny use of the stone to 
Dumbledore? Voldy says in OoP that there's nothing worse than death, 
while in PS/SS Dumbledore says proper thinking frames death as an 
adventure and in OoP that Voldy's belief that there is nothing worse 
than death is his "greatest weakness."

> Kneasy:
> Power comes in many forms.  Economic, military, political, magical. 
> The last of these trumps the rest.  He who has the magical power 
> can do what he damn well pleases. Why else would DD scorn the 
> Minister of Magic post? Because it's meaningless. If you've got the 
> power, it's just a title; if you haven't got the power, you're a 
> puppet.

Sandy:
Does Dumbledore "scorn" the MoM post? Or does he leave it to the 
political animals who are better suited to dealing with the endless 
posturing and pronouncements constituents seem to expect? Regardless 
of how much magic (or money, IMO a RW analog) you have, power in your 
society involves being able to move people: their actions, their 
opinions (which Voldemort does 25% by promise (the "carrot") and 75% 
by threat (the "stick"): percentages are estimated. (What's an 
uberwizard going to do, use a broadbeam "Imperio" over the WW?) Being 
headmaster at Hogwarts is lower profile; it gives Dumbledore more 
privacy for his machinations, more "behind the scenes" geography, and 
what Pip said: influence over the youth. There's also the notion that 
while people may caricaturize their politicos, the person who 
controls the education of their children is someone people have a 
certain investment in trusting. (Just a stray thought on my part.)

> Kneasy:
> At fairly frequent intervals throughout the books, Voldy claims to 
> be the most powerful wizard, sorcerer, whatever. Just as frequently 
> someone pops up with "Oh, no, you're not. Dumbledore is!"
> This is a struggle between two wizards for who wields ultimate  
> power. Voldemort would actively use the power, Dumbledore 
> passively - maybe.

Sandy:
I don't think it's a matter of who uses the power "actively" 
or "passively" (a couple of misnomers, IMO); it's a matter of 
Voldemort having to trumpet his superiority himself, except in rare 
instances; as of his re-embodiment at the end of GoF he is having to 
threaten, hex, speechify, and perform, in order to reassert his power 
base. Even in OoP after his condemned Death Eaters are sprung from 
Azkaban, he is shown threatening dire consequences for any failure to 
succeed/obey. He *has* to exert himself far more to command the same 
degree of loyalty (if he does, except with that sicko bimbo Bella) 
Dumbledore does.

While the Order of the Phoenix and other members of the Eternal Fans 
of Albus Dumbledore Society (EFADS) are proud of their connection 
with Dumbledore; excepting MoM employees who have to keep under the 
radar until Voldemort is "outed," they are quick and fierce in their 
expressions of loyalty. They generally show alacrity, even eagerness 
to follow his instructions to the letter. Is that what you meant 
by "actively" and "passively"?

> Kneasy:
> Pureblood -  mudblood would be irrelevant. It is largely 
> irrelevant. It's a way of keeping score. Feelings and expressions 
> of superiority inferiority happen no matter how just the society. 
> It is innate in our nature. If we don't use one set of criteria, 
> we'll use another. We always have done, we always will. Sex, money, 
> age, chattels, race, religion,  intelligence, employment, even body 
> shape. They've all been used, are used, even today. DD will change 
> human nature, give the WW a utopian equality? I  don't think so.

Sandy:
Dumbledore doesn't want to change human nature: he only wants it to 
experience an object lesson (former teacher, remember?). If the 
lesson is on a grand enough scale, the culture learns...aren't hate 
crimes more severely punished in Germany nowadays than many other 
places whose populations don't so viscerally recall the consequences?

> Kneasy:
> If Voldy won, what would happen to Hogwarts? Pureblood only? Like 
> Hell! Selected, very carefully selected students only. Constantly 
> monitored - as would be the curriculum. Can't have some 
> whippersnapper thinking they can follow the same career path, 
> especially not those untrustworthy Slytherins!

Sandy:
I think the selection process might actually not change much; Muggle-
borns and Mudbloods would be handy subjects for practicing hexes on 
and letting off some of that adolescent angst, at least for house 
Slytherin (otherwise the kiddies might grow into adults who'd want to 
upset the apple cart yet *again*). Give them an illusion of power, 
starting right there in school, while the real power actually stays 
in Voldemort's long, pale hands. (Other houses might shrink with the 
passage of time, however.)
 
> Kneasy:
> Pip  likens the war  to  '30s Germany. Nothing like, in my opinion. 
> I prefer comparison with some of the later Roman Emperors. Say, if 
> Vespasian had faced up to Tiberius. (Not that he did.)
> Voldemort as  Tiberius; one of the 'in' crowd. Corrupt, cruel, 
> arbitrary. <snip>

Sandy:
So you're trying to trade Pip's RW analogy for your RW + IF ("not 
that he did") example? Why am I still inclined to find Pip's the more 
convincing, I wonder?

> Kneasy:
> But both are rulers. To run things, much the same chores have to be 
> done on a day-to-day basis. The  Empire has to be kept going, no 
> matter what. The ruling classes are just the surface scum. It's all 
> a matter of degree, not a dichotomy of function. Was the ordinary 
> man on the Ostia carriers cart affected by all this? Not so's you'd 
> notice. He still ate, slept, worked. His money just had a different 
> head on it, that's all.

Sandy:
When the Third Reich fell, the "cart carriers" still ate, slept, 
worked; but those who had Jewish heritage, were of the intelligensia, 
were gay, or had other targeted attributes they'd been hiding, were 
able to do all those things without the miasma of fear they moved 
through under that regime. Not only that, those who had become "cart 
carriers" in order to duck the Reich's notice could come out of the 
shadows.

<snip>
> Kneasy:
> It resides within Dumbledore; nowhere else. If he retires, sets up 
> a new government, it'll only form factions, each appealing to him  
> for support. <snip> The idea that he can change the ethos of the WW 
> from within the school pre-supposes that he will  be around for 
> long enough to have a permanent effect. <snip>

Sandy:
If Arthur Weasley is the post-Phoenix/transition government MoM (or 
equivalent), followed by, perhaps, Lupin (aided by judicious 
application of the Homorphus charm), who is followed by, say, 
Hermione, I think there is a very good change of the paradigm shift 
sticking without Dumbledore there to hold it in place. Although none 
of those candidates now adhere perfectly to Dumbledore's egalitarian 
philosophies, by the time the Phoenix's pyre is cold, they likely 
will. Anyway, if Harry survives, having conquered Voldemort, what 
exactly do you think the WW will deny *him* for the next, oh, hundred 
years or so? Harry seems to me to pretty well embody that egalitarian 
attitude and appreciation of influence as a double-edged sword. And 
also has a pretty hefty command of "magical power," whose surface 
hasn't even been scratched yet. A big enough "bang" (liked that, some 
of you) can cause, not a permanent change, but a shake up of the old 
order which *can* last long enough for a new paradigm to become the 
new status quo.

> Kneasy:
> Many  posters have asked  "Why is Slytherin?" Good question. Old 
> Sally left these many centuries past. Yet Godric Gryffindor's hat 
> still recognises his adherents. Why? Well, every society is a 
> dynamic; there must be a conflict of ideas for progress to be 
> measured and justified. But is this the best way of doing it? How 
> about getting rid of that damn hat and with it Slytherin, 
> Gryffindor and the rest. <snip>

There does need to be an outlet, a channeling, of ambition. A love of 
power is inherent in the species. Even the pure-blood mania could be 
channeled into Slytherin differently: aren't many descendants of the 
old European aristocracy popular and feted as house party guests in 
spite of not wielding any real power anymore? Pure-blood = equals 
royalty. (We *still* love them, even if they can't summon the power 
to spit!)

> Alternative: Remove magic from the world. That'd do it. While 
> there's magic there'll be a Voldemort.

Sandy:
I think there may come a melt-down scenario: learn to get along, or 
magic dies. No canon for this, but there's room for it, since we know 
so very little about the origins, hows, and whys of magic.

> Pip!Squeak:
> The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is 
> for good people to do nothing. [I apologise that I don't know who 
> originally said that]

Sandy:
Edmund Burke, according to my housemate, the quotes nerd.

> Pip!Squeak:
> I think that like Jen you are getting confused between `imposing 
> views' and `forcing people to make a choice'. Dumbledore is *not* 
> forcing his views on people. He is forcing them to recognise that a 
> choice must be made. If those who believe in choice face those who 
> believe in no choice, what do you do?

> Remnant: OK, here we part ways just as before. I understand the 
> distinction between imposing and forcing people to face a choice. 
> Honest. I simply don't think that DD is doing *either*. IMO he is 
> only defending himself and the WW against a force that removes 
> people's choices (including his own) by killing them if they don't 
> serve him.

Sandy:
I think the drastic and abrupt change in the way Dumbledore relates 
to Fudge after Voldemort is "outed" is canon which may be interpreted 
to support Pip's view. Dumbledore pretty overtly dictates to Fudge 
what is going to happen next, creates an unauthorized Portkey in his 
face and just trods right over Fudge's protests; Dumbledore seems to 
me like a man who is satisfied that he finally has leverage for 
making at least *one* (now formerly?) rather politically pivotal 
person, Fudge, face some pretty obvious choices.

Sandy <hoping I've done something besides further muddying the waters>