Inaugural address and Mandy Croyance on Assumption

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 97853

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
>
Nora:
A lot of the WW, including people we don't have a House
for, strikes me as fundamentally reactionary...I have a lot 
more to say on this.
Wait for papers to be turned in. :)
>

Kneasy:
Hum. 
There is an unfortunate tendency, most marked among 
those  that consider themselves as 'progressives' to label
anything that doesn't further their agenda as 'reactionary', 
particularly if that involves maintaining the status quo. In
the case of the WW it can be argued that it is Voldemort 
who is the 'progressive' and DD the 'reactionary'.
Many posters draw parallels between V and Hitler, but it's
just as valid to compare him to Pol Pot.
There is no moral difference between discrimination based
on racial/blood differences and discrimination based on an
assigned social class. The victims of both end up persecuted
and dead, sacrificed in the cause of social engineering that
guarantees (ha!) the new Nirvana. And guess what? It never 
works. But  that won't stop Voldy bringing the joys of an 
ordered society to the WW, whether folks want it or not. 
Much more progressive and dialectically correct than old-
fashioned laissez-faire, don't you think? 

The purebloods who support Voldy can be labeled as 
reactionaries, but in that case they are trying to turn the 
clock back to a time that never apparently existed. 
Muggle-borns and mudbloods seem to have been a 
significant part of the Hogwarts intake even back in the 
days of the Founders. They see themselves as members
of a self-selected elite; whether you call this an aristocracy
or a self-perpetuating oligarchy is academic. There's little
difference in practice between the Barons of a medieval 
court and the Council of Ten in Venice.

A meritocracy has it's problems too. Who, on merit is best
fitted to 'lead' the WW? Probably Dumbledore. But he's refused
once already, condemning the WW to a weak, vacillating 
government. A  government cannot be strong if the most 
powerful person in society is outside it, no matter how 
benevolent that person may be. All it needs is another 
powerful, ambitious individual with some support and such
a government is on the skids. The struggle is between the
supporters of the powerful, the government is irrelevant 
except as an incidental prize to the winner. 'Merit' is such a
slippery concept in these circumstances; who decides who
merits success? It boils down eventually to power. DD  has
power and abdicated his merited position, Voldy has power
and will fill the vacuum left if he can. If he does, he can be
considered to have merited it.


>
Nora:
Agreed; to me, Voldemort is a combination of two things-
-Kantian radical evil (amorality, power is the only decisive 
force) and a supportive power base. A thought struck me; I 
don't think the WW really *learned* much from VW1. The 
Regulus Blacks of the world who didn't want to kill people 
but thought Mudbloods were inferior; the ones who still live
probably never put two and two together and realized how 
one thing leads to another.
>

Kneasy:
Unfortunately even a cursory glance at the history books 
shows us that power *is* the decisive factor. 
"God is on the side of the big battalions" said Buonaparte,
and that's the way to bet.
Morality never triumphs unless allied with sufficient force,
be it military, economic or political. Pretend otherwise and 
you end up with the truly naive and ridiculous Childrens 
Crusade of 1212. (This is an event that has recently given 
me to wonder about the future of Dumbledore's Army. 
Some posters expect a bunch of semi-trained kids to cut a 
swathe through killer DEs. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.)

It's not just the Regulus Blacks of the WW that haven't 
put two and two together; DD seems not to have either. 
"Voldy's gone, throw a few supporters into Azkaban, carry
on as before and everything will be all right with the world"
seems to be the general attitude on all sides. Of course, he
has Harry  as his fall-back option if things go pear-shaped 
again, but addressing the basic ills of society has no priority.
It probably conflicts with his basic tenet of choices defining
the individual. If you allow choice you must allow the freedom
to make the wrong choice.
   

>
Nora:
How about this; because of the blood requirement and other
factors, Slytherin will naturally have a tendency to accrue the
cultural reactionaries. No Muggleborns is pretty for sure (see my
note below), and that removes a *potential* mitigating factor.
>

Kneasy:
I still prefer ambition and cunning as the defining factors. 
Excessive ambition promotes primacy and primacy engenders
dominance when it's unrestrained. 


>
Nora:
Well, I think what Voldy is offering is both power and elevation
(in the society that he'll be running, as King Subject) to those 
who have the ambition and meet the criteria. He's mixing up 
the social order by changing the criterion upon which social
status and power rests...
Look at some of his language ('Dumbledore, champion of
commoners...)-- this is a wanna-be aristocrat at work, and I 
think he has definite ideas of prequalification and disqualification
therefore.
>

Kneasy:
Yes. But I doubt if he intends to raise any of his supporters
very high. Power in the WW is predicated on *magical* power;
that is entirely personal and cannot be delegated or transferred.
True, only the snotty offspring of his trusted supporters would
receive a Hogwarts education, but I'd bet that even they would 
get a revised curriculum. No point in encouraging delusions of 
adequacy, is there? Not when the top dog is immortal (not a field
of knowledge I can see him urging to anyone else to study).
Nah; Malfoy would be a gopher with privileges.

>
Nora: 
I think it's getting awfully cold down there, since Kneasy and I 
mostly agree on something. :)

I'll disagree on the possession thing for now--it strikes me as a 
little too contrary to the general choices theme; I think it's 
important that Voldemort decided to become what he did, 
somewhere along the way.
>

Kneasy:
Pshaw. The choice is at the other end - Tom has the choice of 
breaking free from his pact/possession towards redemption/rejection
of evil.
Possession implies no choice on Tom's part, but repudiating the
possessor is a choice.