Why Voldemort is a fascist... (LONG)

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 108853

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> 
> As I understand this, and I'm not the practicing political scientist 
> in my house, fascism is notably difficult to define and deal with, 
> as I mentioned.  
>snip 
> In other words, I think there's an ideology at work behind what's 
> going on, and this is an attempt to understand why these people do 
> what they do.  Yes, I think Voldemort and the DEs are not quite one-
> and-the-same in purpose, but please check out my other reply to 
> Pippin's comments on this same thread.  I think there's more going 
> on with Voldemort ideologically than just 'Hi, I want power and I 
> want all of it'.  There is *certainly* more going on with the DEs 
> than that.
> 
> 
Kneasy: 
Felt compelled to respond, if only in a futile attempt to keep you out
of low dives and dubious bars.

But more seriously - fascism is exceptionally difficult  to define unless
you go literal with "the  political creed of an Italian Political Grouping
founded by B. Mussolini after he got fed up with being a communist."
Yep. That's our Benny - "the greatest politician of the 20th century"
according to who? Lenin of course. It's enough to make the cat laugh.

Now  it's accepted as a portmanteau word to describe  any number
of horrors that blighted the last century. Fascism because Benny's 
gang was the first. Even that warped Austrian was in awe of him to
begin with.
Didn't last though - to use an English phrase Benny  was all mouth
and no trousers.  

But because it covered such disparate beliefs, it was in reality 
meaningless.

1.Benny - yearned to return Italy to the glories of Ancient Rome
2.Adolf - reckoned western values were corrupting the Germanic soul
and wanted a 'spiritual renewal' - (historically that meant marching 
into Poland.)  
3.Franco - determined to uphold 'traditional' standards as exemplified 
by Church and State.

There is a commonality - all looked back to a golden past that never
really existed (as opposed to communists who look forward to a golden
future that will never arrive). Apart  from that - nothing in common.

Now the DE/purebloods might fit this conservative template, but not 
Voldy. The past, except for his personal one, holds no interest at all.
Understandable; why should an immortal worry about the past? He's
got one hell of a future instead. All  he need do  is get his feet under
the table and he's set forever. Political agendas become very small
beer when eternity stretches  out before you. What matters, what
really matters is that some bumbling do-gooder and his snotty little
acolyte don't somehow cock it up.
 
> Nora:
> Do you mean right now, that being a DE is, well, pretty bad?  The 
> thing is, we have canon that when he started out, a lot of people 
> thought *he had the right ideas* about dealing with the Mudbloods--
> *they* were the despised minority.
> 

Kneasy:
Yep. How many openly support Voldy? Damn few.
When he started out his ideas seemed fine. Putting them into practice
tended to cause a re-assessment. Even his supporters began to
realise that each of them belonged to a minority - of one. Having
pureblood ancestors did not give immunity or provoke mercy - which
it should if Voldy had a pureblood philosophy to promote.

> Nora:
> But purging the Muggleborns is a real change in the system, too.  
> That's why I read the struggle for Hogwarts in its more broad 
> thematic meanings.  It's over the right for free admission to 
> society versus admission based on heredity.

Kneasy:
Well, it's based on heredity at the moment. You have to be born
a wizard. Seems pretty exclusive already. No place there for Mrs Figg,
a natural denizen of the WW.
Further restrictions could be emplaced but I bet they'd still learn 
somehow, somewhere.

> Nora:
> We've been told that we'll see more of his minions than of LV, 
> because of course, all evil despots like having minions do work 
> instead of having to get up off the couch, turn off the TV, and go 
> commit murder.  But I do agree that there're things you have to do 
> yourself.
>
Kneasy:
Ah. I think you missed half my point.
Voldy can say to Lucius "Go  and be Minister." No problem.
He can't say "Go and be Minister and here's part of my personal
magical powers to help you do it." 
His powers are personal and can only be used by him.
He might be the second  most powerful wizard in the world, but by
being his supporter that does not raise Malfoys personal magic index.

And the DEs do not seem quantitatively much stronger than non-DEs.
Which gives them a problem. It'd be "Erm... Boss can you come and
kill this one for us? We can't quite manage."

> Nora:
> Supporting a despotism doesn't take one in front of every house, 
> just enough.  You kill enough people randomly, you can enforce the 
> idea of a Reign of Terror fairly functionally--and then people start 
> to fold.  It is, however, also canon that the DEs were outnumbering 
> the OotP by the end of VW1.  Of course, neither of these groups is 
> exactly the general population, but this is surely telling as well.
> 
Kneasy:
Random terror works for terrorists, it's a frost for rulers. Especially
when every house contains wizards with wands. Random killings of
the population by government just produces anarchy, and probably
wand-wielding snipers targeting the rush-hour exodus from the 
Ministry. Society breaks down, any stranger is a target, communities
break up, families apparate to who knows where - try ruling that.

> Nora:
> With Umbridge, it's the theme that one can help ideas that are evil 
> in more than one way.  I admit that the theme behind her and Fudge 
> seems pretty transparent to me--you don't have to be a direct 
> supporter to end up helping Voldemort.  Umbridge shares so many of 
> the same ideas as Voldemort--that's what's scary.
> 
Kneasy:
The 'useful fool' concept. Yes, I'll agree with that.

> Nora:
> In my reply elsewhere on this thread, I noted that he did attack 
> Harry as a baby because he felt some kind of connection to him, in 
> that they were both 'tainted' by Muggle blood.  This indicates some 
> sort of belief in the blood thing as reality, rather than simple 
> political opportunism.  I am hoping that we get more detail on this 
> next book.  It seems to me that he's built a persona, a public 
> image, as the Heir of Slytherin, and that this is part of what gets 
> the followers.  I suspect there are followers as well out of sheer 
> desire to get ahead.  That is enough to consider it an ideological 
> underpinning--you don't have to make it overt to have one, after 
> all...

Kneasy:
The connection. I've other ideas about that that don't involve
political conviction. 

I fear you may just be nudging Voldy's personal animosities due to 
the circumstances of his birth over the line into a sort of philosophical
manifesto. Can't follow you there. He hates; that's his credo and it's a
personal grudge writ large. Even so he was willing to let Lily live. His
agenda might be more flexible than you think.