ESE!Fudge

[Caius Marcius]

No: HPFGUIDX 113320

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <submarimon15 at y...> 
wrote:
> <snip> mhbobbin:
> > 
> > I agree that Fudge is a bad'un.   I think the real debate is 
> whether 
> > Fudge is evil because he is an incompetent and corrupt 
politician 
> > willing to do anything to hold onto power, or if he is evil as 
in 
> > Death Eater. I'm not yet convinced he is a DE, but his actions / 
> > obstructions / attitudes are consistently helpful to DEs and 
> > Voldemort.

There is a concept that our Marxist friends used to promote that I 
can best illustrate by using a quote from Lenin (Source: Lenin's 
Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 
1965, Volume 30)

"That is how the German Independents and the French Longuetists act. 
These parties' repetition of the petty-bourgeois democrats' phrases 
about the majority of the "people" (deceived by the bourgeoisie and 
crushed by capital) places them objectively on the side of the 
bourgeoisie against the proletariat."

End quote

So what Lenin is saying is that though these French and German 
Commie-wannabes may think that they're doing their bit to promote 
world revolution and the dictatorship of the proles, but: because 
they're advocating reformation rather than abolition of the 
corrupted capitalist system, they merely are letting themselves be 
used by the bourgeoisie to perpetuate aforementioned system. 
Therefore the German/French groups, though they may fancy themselves 
true-blue supporters of the Revolution, their announced goals and 
ideals, even if achieved, would actually facilitate the perpetuation 
of bourgeoisie establishment. Hence,  they are "objectively on the 
side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat"

So what does this have to do with Cornelius Fudge? 

Fudge through his actions is certainly objectively on the side of 
the Death Eaters. He has allowed the Voldemort and his minions to 
rise to renewed power pretty much undisturbed by anyone other than 
the OOP, and has done his best to harass the opponents of the Dark 
Lord, Dumbledore and Harry in particular.

But this does not mean that Fudge is consciously advocating a DE 
agenda. He is merely (IMO) a dull complacent man who does not see 
the imminent threat rising against the WW (it would be of course 
impossible to think of a contemporary parallel, since none exist).

If Fudge were a conscious agent of the Dark Lord, why hasn't this 
spot of dialogue taken place?

THE TIME: Beginning of Book Five. THE SCENE: Minister of Magic's 
office. VOLDEMORT & FUDGE are discovered enjoying a cognac and 
smoking long Havana cigars

VOLDEMORT: It sure feels good being resurrected. I can hardly wait 
to unleash all my fell plans.

FUDGE: Mi casa es su casa, Lord Voldemort. Anything I can do to 
assist, you just lay it on me, bro.

VOLDEMORT: As a matter of fact, I'm glad you bought that up. There's 
this prophecy in the Ministry of Magic about me and the Potter lad 
I'm simply dying to hear. I've only heard snippets of it here and 
there up to now. I suspect it might contain some very useful 
information that would assist me in my – I mean, of course, our 
campaign. Do you think some Legilimency against the Potter lad might 
assist in this?

FUDGE: Oh, I'm sure it would, but I hate to see you go through all 
that bother. Hey, here's an idea – I've got clearance for all the 
top-security areas, being Minister and all that – why don't we just 
pop down to the Dept. of Mysteries, and you can pluck it off the 
shelf yourself.

VOLDEMORT: Ripping idea, Minister, just ripping. Lead on, my friend.

(The two exit to the Dept. of Mysteries to hear the Prophecy. THE 
END)



If we assume ESE!Fudge, we have to assume there's some obstacle that 
prevents Fudge from accessing the DOM – something that even the DA 
was able to easily do.

> 6. Questionable people in higher places in the Ministry. Umbridge, 
> Bagman, Imperio'd Percy?
> 
JKR has already said that Percy was not Imperio'd but was acting on 
his own bigheaded volition.

   - CMC (singing the old activist anthem, "Which side are you on, 
objectively?/which side are you on?"