this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2026
933 points (97.8% liked)
Comic Strips
21060 readers
4330 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well no surprise there, Harry was essentially a jock who only excelled in two things:
And he was good enough in magical self defence that he took down the biggest baddest wizard with just the disarming spell. Literally a magical "put yer gun down".
He could've gone into sports but hey, he just finished off the "big bad" shortly after he turned 18, so of course he'd chase that high. Especially when his girlfriend went into sports and they could hardly both play, that would be constant tension.
So yup, he went on to be a cop. And I see a lot of people claiming that ooh, the wizarding world is different, the police aren't sent after innocent people, their justice system isn't rigged, there's no discrimination, yada yada... Hello??? Magical SAPIENT creatures are routinely enslaved, Dumbledore, someone people thought to be above reproach, was constantly accosted by the very same cops, Harry himself was accused and dragged into a kangaroo court over DEFENDING himself, the aurors have proven time after time that most of them are just as ineffective as the typical Murican doughnut-muncher mall cop, and about discrimination... "mudbloods" need a reminder? Or how Filch is treated?
The wizarding world is the last living remnant of the elitism of the British monarchy/nobility, and if you don't see this, you lack practically all comprehensive reading skills. Put down those rose tinted glasses and read Harry Potter while paying attention to the social narrarive. It will open your eyes.
What pisses me off is that you're 100 % correct but most of it is unintentional on Rowling's part. She's a fascist reactionary and she just, for the most part, enthusiastically described her perfect little ideal society.
Everyone is in their place, the good guys work very hard to maintain the existing social order, and the people at the bottom are there because that is in their very nature and really they just like it that way and attempting to elevate them is futile. Textbook fascism and all of it is presented completely deadpan because this is Rowling's genuine beliefs.
Hot take: HP's popularity is responsible for more societal ills than pretty much any other book in print. Almost no-one engages with it critically even amongst the crowd that outwardly disagrees with Rowling's more recent political activism. Fuuuuck that license.
I'm not sure that the outcome of Harry Potter is fascist in nature. After Voldemort is defeated there's no mythic national rebirth, no driving nationalism, no cult of personality at the top, and the society doesn't treat violence as virtue. What it looks like to me is more of a reactionary neoliberal, paternalist world. Hierarchy is enforced and treated as natural, change is looked at with suspicion, institutions are trusted, and the only problems come about when bad individuals are in charge of those institutions. This is essentially the worldview of 19th century imperialist Britain.
To be clear, though, fascism does exploit these weaknesses in liberal/neoliberal thought to bring itself about and does share some of the superficial look, but I think it flattens the term to label Harry Potter and/or JK Rowling as explicitly fascist. I think at best her work is neoliberal slop and that she has some abhorrent views about gender that people who are fascists would agree with.
The work itself is definitely a fascist pre-cursor. The whole "Wizarding society" thing is the mythical ethnostate from which everyone else must be excluded to avoid violence. That fact is so central to Rowling's beliefs that it's barely a theme in the books, just straight up a fundamental fact about the world barely worth commenting on. And even though HP is pretty sanitized wannabe liberal slop, she still manage to slip in some very racist stuff (slavery allegory about slaves being happy, "Cho Chang", the Irish boy who constantly blows shit up, etc.).
I do believe that Rowling herself is not a very intelligent person (the quality of her writing is proof enough) and has incredible amounts of cognitive dissonance from trying to fit in with the liberals who made her successful, while holding some incredibly backwards view on many social topics. You're right that she's not a fascist per se, because she doesn't have fascism's consistent belief in self-ideology. At the same time much of her political activism has been so enabling to open fascists that it begs the question: does the label matter? Is the sheep who opens the gate to the wolf not, in its own way, a wolf in sheep's clothing? Are U.S. Republicans not fascists just because they are more concerned about their own self-interest than any alliance to ideology?
I certainly agree that Harry Potter has fascist precursors within it, but that's mostly my point: Neoliberalism itself is a fascist precursor in real life, or at least fascism easily exploits neoliberalism's weaknesses. So to that end I think the labels do matter. For example, in theory it's easier to right the ship and turn away from fascism or recognize its warning signs in a neoliberal society than in an actually fascist one. I.e. turning away from the path of fascism and towards a more egalitarian society might have been easier in 1990s America than it is now in a 2025 America. In much the same way no one thinks JK Rowling isn't a huge bigot, no one could have reasonably claimed that 1990s America didn't have its problems. Neither really fit the definition of fascism, although both lead to fascism.
I think the distinction is important because it hopefully makes it easier for imperfect, neoliberal places like Western Europe, Canada etc. that are having problems with rising right-wing movements to recognize problems before it becomes too late, rather than pointing out their weaknesses and jumping straight to a fascism label.