Only the second volume in my ongoing series, Essays by Stupid People: Snarky Edition, this essays hails from www.exposingsatanism.org/harrypotter2.htm, a sort of amusing, sort of horrifying site. It’s amusing in that these people attain levels of self-delusion that would make the Hale-Bopp suiciders stand up and take notice. It’s horrifying in that, well, it’s just horrifying.
I don’t think I’m quite as ethically clean in challenging this essay as I was in the last one. While I don’t agree with 99.9% of what she has to say, this essay writer’s underlying thought, that Harry Potter is occultic, is one that I don’t have a problem with. It is, it’s just that her application of its occultic nature is so deceitful that I can’t let it slide without comment. Maybe some time in the future I’ll post up some of the writing I did to try and explain why I eventually did post this. In the meantime, the snark goes on. For those who aren’t familiar with my previous entry, read that one and then read this one. Basically, I take the essay line by line and take it to bits. Snark in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1:
It was with fear and a great sense of shame and guilt that I touched the cover of a Harry Potter book for the first time,
(“My Daddy havin’ learned me of the evils of readin’ so early in life.”)
and then forced myself to sit through the movies.
(Yeah, the pacing’s a bit off in the first movie, but the second one moves along pretty well, I thought. Haven’t seen the third. I hear it has some second-act issues, which usually bugs me.)
For weeks I had prayed and asked for guidance, and I hope it was God’s will that I did, and saw with my own eyes what is foisted upon the eyes and minds of our children.
(Unless your children have the money to buy their own movie tickets and are willing to defy you rather openly, no one’s “foisting” anything on them. Don’t blame God for your crappy parenting skills.)
I have heard many bad things about these books and movies, there would be countless instances of witchcraft,
(Okay, you got us there. They are practicing magic, and practicing it a lot. Sort of like that satanic bastard Gandalf.)
(Yeah, but they have British accents, and that makes them cool.)
brewing of drugs made by boiling alive babies pulled from the earth,
(You mean the mandrake root? Yeah, that scene was a bit . . . disturbing, but, lady, if your kids look like that, seriously, stop reproducing. There are already enough flaws in the human genome without you helping. As for the myth, it has a long and storied tradition, and some of the preeminent Christian scholars of the medieval period extolled the virtues of its life-preserving properties. Though more traditionally the babies pulled from the earth were macerated or ground up in a mortar and pestle.)
sexual congress with goats
(Excuse me? Sexual congress with goats? Just trying to throw that one in at the end to blind-side us, huh? Pretty sure I’d remember a goat-sex scene in any novel, let alone Harry Potter.)
and many more things not fit for young readers’ and viewers’ eyes, but what I found was much worse still than I had feared.
(Nicely done. You end your silly litany with something that never happened, and then tell us you read much worse. Considering you read at least one scene that never actually happened, this should be interesting.)
Please do not let your children read these books or watch these movies!
(Based on your say-so? *shakes magic 8-ball* Outcome Unlikely.)
I will now tell you why:
The antagonist in the Harry Potter books is a man called Tom (parody of the Trinity, more about that in the next paragraph)
(I await your insights with bated breath.)
Marvolo (marvels miracles)
(I think we’re missing some punctuation here. “Marvel” and “miracle” do come from the same root, “mirus,” meaning “to wonder at,” but they’re hardly close to being the same word, having moved away from each other about three hundred years after Christ’s resurrection. Associating the two is sort of silly.)
Riddle (referring to the Divine mystery),
(Or referring to the title. Y’know, the bit about the Secrets)
a man who is three as one, in the spiritual shape of an old man (Voldemort, meaning flight of death, a direct reference to the plagues over Egypt),
(Or, if you really paid attention in Latin class, it could also be “vole of death.” I don’t think any of the plagues involving members of the Crecetidae family, but I might be wrong there. The Latin’s not particularly good here, but the verb that could be jerry-rigged into being part of this name refers more to an extremely rapid flight of an arrow or such-like, not to the relatively sedate and ponderous “passing over” of the Angel of Death or any of the other plagues.)
in the body of the young man who lives in the diary (Bible),
(The diary is a Bible? In this very sentence, you were saying that marvel and miracle are the same thing, now we’re expected to think that a diary, a “a daily record of personal activities, reflections, or feelings,” is synonymous with “the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament?” Wow. Tom’s quite a writer. How does he cover the stories about the pre-incarnate Christ in the Old Testament? Writing as a zygote?)
and as the spirit that guides (as in the first book when he fights the witches for a stone the Sorcerer’s Stone that grants immortality and is in defiance of the punishment for the fall).
(That wasn’t anything to do with Tom Riddle, and you’ve already said that the spirit is the Vole of Death, but I get what you’re saying. What I don’t understand is why you’re unwilling to consider that this triune entity is more analogous to the profane trinity from the end times. You have Tom Riddle as the charismatic Antichrist, the guiding spirit as the corrupting Whore of Babylon and Voldemort as the powerful, horrifying Beast. And when your children say, “Well, then why can’t the children beat him if he’s evil,” you can explain that it’s because they aren’t using God’s ways to fight him and only God can truly defeat such forces of evil. But that would get in the way of you being self-righteous and would require critical thinking. I apologize. Please continue.)
This Tom Riddle is clearly the God of Christian tradition as other Christian critics of Mrs. Rowling’s books have pointed out.
(Are you referring to the homeless dude I met in Boston who shouted out a similar statement just before peeing on the sidewalk? Because, I gotta say, he made a pretty compelling case right until he whipped his pecker out.)
When Potter first sees Tom Riddle the Son, Tom is described as strangely blurred around the edges, suggesting a halo (p. 330).
(Or suggesting that he was indistinctly seen, which, in context of the book, seems quite likely. Halos tend to be bright and illuminating, creating a clearer image of the object in question than one might otherwise get. That’s how they were used in most art up until around the 19th century, at least. They can be blinding, at times, but rather rarely blurring. Angels and demons tend to stay fairly sharply in focus.)
The reason why Mrs. Rowling calls Jesus Tom is simple.
(Or simplistic. But I’m not about to nitpick.)
In England, the saying every Tom, Dick and Harry is highly popular and in this case alludes to the omnipresence of God in our world.
(Huh? I’m quite familiar with the etymology of that particular phrase, and I can assure you that if it alludes to the omnipresence of God, then this is the first time in recorded history that it has done so, whatever your sources may say.)
This is another attempt to confuse us by presenting a false, mixed up trinity: Tom, the Father;
(Or Tom the Son, as you’ll refer to him later in this very paragraph. It’s not as though I really expect you to demonstrate a consistent internal logic. I’m also curious how someone can be a part of more than one trinity. I’ll have to consult Amy, the Triad Hussy.)
Dick, the Spirit (better known in the series as the ghost Sir Benedict de Mimpsy Porkington, affectively called Nearly-Headless-Dick by the children);
(I can assure you, even with their rather different use of “Dick” as an idiom, no children’s book in the U.S. or the UK would be permitted to have a character called “Nearly Headless Dick.” His name is Nick, in both versions of the book, I’m quite sure. There’s no way I’m googling “nearly headless dick” from work. He’s also a monumentally minor character in the series, as a whole, whereas the Holy Spirit and his satanic counterpart are pretty much the point-men in the coming Apocalypse. And shame on you for not noticing that his name contains the word “porking.”
I’m also curious about what you think the adjective “affectively” means. I think you meant “affectionately.” “Effectively” would also work, in context, but it’d be a poor choice, I’d think.)
and Harry, as the Son, the false Christ.
(Now, here you’re coming about as close as you get to making a valid observation. Harry as Christ-like figure is definitely an interesting topic for debate. I mean, he’s not a particularly malevolent person, in that he rarely, if ever, sets out to do evil, and when he does it’s usually because he gives into his human passions, not because he’s enacting some dastardly plan. Still, he clearly has the potential to become truly evil, which makes me wonder: is this something like what Christ might have been like as a child, without the instruction of the Torah? Was it his human half, educated and socially bound up, that kept his nascent divine power from manifesting as evil? Apart from the Gospel of Thomas, we know nothing of His childhood, and the bit about making birds out of clay and setting them to flight and – well, let’s just say I’m not willing to accept Apocrypha as autobiography. Could Harry evolve into the Antichrist? Well, I don’t think the books would call him that, but it’s clear that he’s closer to being Voldemort than he’s particularly comfortable with, so he could definitely turn to evil. I call that dramatic tension, but I suppose you could call it a sign that Harry is Of The Devil. To each their own.)
Later, Tom the Son will remark that he and Potter are very alike (p. 340), causing more confusion in the heart of the reader.
First of all, confusion in the heart is clinically called “arrhythmia” and is often fatal if left untreated. You mean “confusion in the mind,” as that’s where thoughts happen. It happens fairly often and is ordinarily only fatal if you’re operating heavy machinery. And the villain saying he’s very much like the hero goes back to the book of Job and, while it’s confusing, it’s one of those things that even young children eventually have to learn to cope with.
Lucius Malfoy (meaning of bad/wrong faith, again this is misleading!),
Well, it really means more like “traitorous” or “untrustworthy,” but Rowling’s Latin is more than a little dodgy, so I can understand the confusion. I’m surprised that you didn’t pick up on the meaning of “Lucius.” “Bringer of the light.” Sort of like another Biblical character that I’m sure you’re familiar with.
a respectably dressed family man
Don’t you know that all villains in young adult books have to be either natty dressers or horribly gauche? It’s all about letting them know that conformity is bad, but being ugly is even worse. Oh, and this “family man” treats his sentient house elf as worse than a slave, tortures mortals for fun and tried to kill both Harry and his father several times. He also uses witchcraft as much as anyone else in the book. Pretty sure those aren’t listed as the acts of a good father.
with the pale hair and ethereal looks of an Angel, representing the Angel Gabriel of the Annunciation (Luke 1:31, but with the name of the fallen one in order to confuse Christian readers)
Oh, good, you did catch on to the Lucifer thing eventually. I think. Did you know that Lucifer was often shown with pale hair and ethereal beauty until people confused him with the nature gods? And that the angelic image enjoyed a comeback in the Renaissance? And that the Torah says that Lucifer’s form is comely and attractive? Oh, and Gabriel was usually portrayed with blondish hair, sometimes tending towards brown. You may be thinking of Raphael. I remain curious as to how you justify his use of magic.
gives the girl of a humble home, Ginny Weasley, the diary of Tom Riddle.
My estimation of your reading comprehension just increased.
It is not hard to realize this diary, containing the life history of our Lord Tom the Son, represents both the message that she is to become the Divine vessel, and the Christian Bible, the very base of our faith.
(And there it goes again. First of all, if we’re going to go with a Virgin Mary thing with Ginny here. *pause* Sorry, had to have a quick giggle. If we’re going to go with a Virgin Mary thing with Ginny here, she was an Israelite girl. She could receive the Torah, somewhat modestly, but she’s not about to study the thing as she does for much of the book. So that’s a pretty crappy angel you have in Lucius.
And how does the Torah fit into this book, exactly? I mean, it’s only about Tom. Where’s the equivalent of the Talmud in the diary? Did he spend the formative years of his life writing out holy law in his diary?
Oh, and Ginny’s not short for Virginia
The Angel Malfoy, with modesty that befits his kind, does not touch the revered and frightened girl but puts the diary in the girl’s cauldron, representive of her womb.
(Ladies, if anyone, no matter how modest or angelic, attempts to insert foreign objects into your genitals without permission, contact the authorities. Oh, and in the world where this novel takes place, Malfoy’s dropping the book in the cauldron will eventually cause Ginny to die unless someone does something about it, and he drops it into her cauldron after plowing into her in a crowded market. That’s not typical angelic behaviour towards innocent girls.)
The innocent Ginny confides in the diary, asking it questions, and the diary advises her, guides her, like the Holy Scripture. About the diary she says, I’m so glad I’ve got this diary to confide in … It’s like having a friend I can carry around in my pocket (p. 335). Isn’t this the way we wish our children would think about the Holy Scripture?
(Sort of. Kind of hope that my son’s copy of the Bible doesn’t include the bits that’ll cause him to accidentally father an evil megalomaniacal wizard, though.)
Ginny continues to ask Tom for guidance, until she, under the malevolent and seductive influence of the anti-Christ figure, Harry Potter, bearing the mark of the beast on his front, rejects it and it falls into his hands.
(The mark of the beast? Oh, right, the lightning bolt. How is that a mark of the beast? I’ve always thought of it more as the mark of Thor. Which would be much cooler, if Harry’s supposed to be Thor. Seriously, that’d be awesome. Smiting trolls with Mjolnir and stuff.)
The little girl writes Potter a poem: His eyes are as green as a fresh pickled toad, He is truly divine, the hero who conquered the dark(sic) lord. Once more a blasphemous attempt to turn the tables around and represent witchcraft, a dark force Christianity has faced and fought since the dark ages, as benevolent, and make God out to be something dark and fearful to us.
(And here I thought it was just a bit of doggerel. And witchcraft predates Christianity by somewhere between 4000 to an eternity of years, and people of the Book have been fighting it pretty much since the two first met. Yes, it’s often cast as benevolent, a truly horrifying thing to see in a piece of fiction, much like that satanic bastard Gandalf actually being praised for defeating the icky Bal-Rogg with his equally icky magic staff and sword.)
The terms green eyes and pickled toad should be enough to raise the alarm bells in the mind of any true Christian,
(Okay, the pickled toad thing I get, but green eyes? God still has it in for the Irish, does he?)
but our children are not always well versed in the Divine truth of the Bible and defenceless against this sort of Satanic indoctrination.
(Where are pickled toads and green eyes mentioned in Scripture? I mean, I agree, pickled toad’s a thing pretty commonly associated with witchcraft, but unless you have the version of the story of the witch of Endor where she gives Saul a shopping list before summoning Saul’s spirit, the Bible gives pretty short shrift to telling us what objects are evil and which are not, and judging people based on eye colour is just silly.)
Ginny, like our own children, is captured by Potter’s serpent-like green gaze, and maybe his tongue;
Well, considering there’s a fair bit of conversation involved in his getting a hold of the diary, I think we can take the “maybe” out of that sentence. And what a perfidious boy for saving a young girl from certain doom.
Mrs. Rowling gives away in the first book that the boy can talk to snakes, and considering what we already know about Potter, we should not put seducing an innocent girl into original sin past him. Like our own children, it is a lure she cannot resist, and one the Virgin Mary never had to face.
Eh? Our children can’t resist the Devil? And here I thought that bit about there always being a way out of a temptation was pretty clear. Leaving aside the unlikeliness of Harry seducing his best friend’s younger sister with so many other hotties at his school, Harry seems genuinely mortified that he possesses a trait commonly associated with dark magic, so I’m not sure where you’re going with this.
In this second book in the series, Mrs. Rowling, who for many years studied Satanism and Kabbalah in France and several other secularized old world countries,
Wha?! That’s just . . . bizarre. The lady’s life has been pretty much played out in public, and there’s no real mention of her studying the occult.
represents the Immaculate Conception by Ginny of Tom as rape, of the mind but also of the body, and the Annunciation as a fraud committed against the virgin girl meant to be the bride of the anti-Christ figure Potter.
You clearly haven’t been reading much slash fiction. Draco/Ginny is much more believable, though I’ve always thought Draco/Snape had more panache.
She does this inversion of our ancient truths without blinking an eyelash, and according to some is a representative on earth of the ancient demon Lilith, who was rejected by Adam as a wife for her forwardness and her refusal to take a wifes place.
(Are we talking about Ginny now, or are we still on J.K. as the source of all evil, or is this just you, working out your daddy issues in public? And, incidentally, very nice job of summing up a complex and long-running series of myths and folk-tales as Lilith (who’s never mentioned in the Christian Bible except parenthetically) being responsible for the whole mess.)
Before the conception of Tom Riddle, the Son, is completed, Potter pierces the Bible Ginny holds with the fang of a serpent-like poisonous monster, burns it, and reclaims his unconscious bride (the scene bears resemblance to the one in Rosemary’s Baby since Ginny is also wearing a black robe and her legs are uncovered) while Tom is denied becoming flesh to save the world from Potter and his followers.
(Did you miss the part where Voldemort’s coming back to destroy all Muggles? Because if that’s saving the world, dear Lord, I hope the Jews are right.
Oh, and the monster’s a basilisk, whose poison was said to have great healing properties when handled properly. They’re also said to be birthed when a rooster lays an egg in a dung heap. Thus signifying that we’re reading fiction.)
A phoenix, favourite symbol of Freemasons like Hilary Clinton, a bird born from fire and with feathers the color of hellish flames, red, gold, orange and yellow (not coincidentally also the colors of Potter’s house in the school) comes to Potter’s aid.
(The phoenix is a popular critter in many world mythologies, in some variation or another. And, incidentally most flames glow red, orange or yellow. It’s what flames do, in Hell or elsewhere. It’s all part of the exothermic reaction thing.)
Not surprisingly, Ginny weeps silently after being ‘rescued’ by Potter, for deep inside she knows that now she will face a fate worse than death, and that she is lost (p. 350).
(Wow, I so didn’t get that interior motivation from her thanking Harry for saving her from certain death.)
The movie ends with Potter and his mentor, a master in the Satanic art of shape shifting, humiliating the Angel of the Annunciation.
(You mean Lucius, the guy named after the Devil, who keeps slaves, kills mortals and wants nothing more than to bring back to power a guy who wants to destroy the world, and casts at least a many spells throughout the book as the “evil” shapeshifting Dumbledore? That Malfoy?
In a particularly distasteful and lewd display, Potter tries to tempt the rightfully furious Angel by raising his pant leg and showing him his nude ankle.
(That’s so Victorian I’m not quite sure how to respond. And since, in the book, it’s made absolutely clear why his nude ankle is such a stinger, I’m not sure what other item of attire wouldn’t have earned your ire. His hat, I suppose, if he wore one.)
In this way the Harry Potter books contribute to the hidden gay agenda.
(I shall be on the alert for gay people removing my socks to end slavery. Didn’t realize that was a part of Their conspiracy.)
When this temptation is refused, he has a malignant house spirit who embodies all the evils of stem-cell research curse the angel down.
(1. You really need to assume that when you make statements to the effect that a house-elf, a long-standing mythological character dating back at least to pre-Roman Cornwall, is an example of the evils of modern genetic research, that we have no clue what the hell you’re talking about.
2. In the book, as in the movie, the house-elf acts of his own volition, though Harry does encourage him to do and say as he feels.
3. How can someone who lived in absolute servitude possibly be construed as “malignant”? House-elves do laundry and cook meals and such. If such domestic tasks are to be considered “malignant,” that doesn’t say much for the art of homemaking, now, does it?)
In the book Blood in Vein, notorious Satanist Brian Hodge puts the blasphemous words, “There are many gods. There are many sons conceived by rape,” as an answer to the question, What of your being the Son of God? into the mouth of Jesus (p. 271 of the paperback). This is common practice among Satanists, representing God as one of a multitude so we will lose direction, and perverting the birth of our Saviour in rituals where they invert crosses, spill the blood of roosters, have goats rape virgins, and eat newborns. And we now see that they will stop at nothing.
(Where did the sudden mention of polytheism come from? If anything, the Harry Potter books propose a book without gods at all, which is spiritism, not polytheism. And there are no inverted crosses, bloodied roosters, goat-raped virgins or newborn recipes in these books, nor are they even implied except as things that Voldemort might do, so why bother mentioning any of this? At all? Oh, right, you’re attempting to foment righteous ire, even if you have to close your mind to do so.)
Throughout every next book in the series, Our Lord Voldemort/God tries to smite Potter and, according to Mrs. Rowling, every time he fails, reinforcing gullible readers’ confidence in the power of evil.
(Voldemort is trying to kill everyone. Everybody. Dead. And, given his vicious efforts to remain on the material plane, he clearly doesn’t think there’s much of an afterlife if there is one at all, so don’t feed me some malarkey about how he’s going to kill the Muggles for their own good. If you’ve read the books, you know that his followers certainly aren’t aware of that. They take every opportunity to badger, humiliate and otherwise attack them. Which, admittedly, isn’t that radically different from how most evangelicals treat non-evangelicals, so maybe you have a point after all.
Now, I’m not saying that Harry’s use of magic is an act of good, except that in the context of the body of fiction of which it’s a part, it is not intended as an act of evil, and if we’re to accept her not-real world, we need to accept that.)
Potter’s godfather, the ancient Egyptian demon Sirius (better know to us as Satan, or Potter’s [GOD] ie true father, historically Set) who also takes the shape of a large black dog, and is described as both beautiful and violent by Mrs Rowling, appears in three of the books and returns physically to the underworld when Potter turns sixteen and is no longer in need of his protection. One wonders if the infernal nuptials of Potter’s mother Lily, also named after Lilith, and this dog will be described in any of the following books.
(Sirius, the celestial body, is also known as the Dogstar, whose guitarist is Keanu Reeves. In the move The Devil’s Advocate, Keanu is the son of the Devil. That’s as close as you get here. In fact, the star’s sometimes associated with Isis, wife of the fellow dismembered and scattered by Set. Of course, since Lucius clearly represents a good angel because he has a horribly evil name, you’d probably have no trouble believing that Sirius is evil because he has a name of one of the opposite numbers of a demonic entity.
And, by the way, you’ll be shocked to know that Lily’s name means . . . Lilly. As in the flower. That’s Latin, and has etymological roots with words relating to delicateness and beauty. Lilith, on the other hand, means “of the night,” and comes from Arabic. Two completely different words. Really.)
Nothing good can come of this. Our country is now beleaguered in the Harry Potter merchandize, colorfully, festively almost announcing the arrival of the anti-Christ. The worst product available to corrupt our youth was Potter’s vibrating broomstick, now taken off the market under pressure of Christian parents because it taught young girls how to abuse themselves and awoke their interest in the sins of the flesh. This is damage that cannot be undone.
(Masturbation is self-abuse? Wow, that’s just precious and stupid. It was taken off the market, by the way, because more than just Christian parents realized its . . . implications, and because of issues with the battery pack and things getting caught in the vibrating parts of the broom. I made it through that with a straight face. Yay me.)
Our own President and his wife have let this evil into the White House and have boasted Harry Potter themed Christmas decorations!
(Ah, yes, and I understand their Christmas feast was a fresh-roasted Baptist, drizzled with orange sauce. Personally, I’ve never liked cooked Baptist. Too fatty. Now the Amish, them’s good eating.)
The Vatican, not coincidentally located in the centre of Europe,
(Have you actually checked a map? Or, like, history?)
has sided with the Satanists and proclaimed Harry Potter harmless; once again the Catholic Church forsakes the Christ and sides with those who would pull us down with them into eternal damnation.
(Not with you on the Harry Potter thing, but as for the Catholic Church siding with the Devil . . . I got nothing against you there. I don’t credit them with as much conscious villainy as you do, though.)
It may be already too late to save our world, but we can save our souls and refuse the ticket for a one-way trip to hell Potter provides.
(Or at least buy your ticket at a serious discount. Honestly, I saw some guy paying cover price for a Harry Potter book. Cover price! There’s just no excuse.)
It is never too late to cancel your trip.
(Well, not unless you’re being tempted by a guy with a snake for a tongue and frog-eyes right? Remember that bit? Up a page or so . . . oh, never mind.)
God bless you and be with you always
(And you too, ma’am. I get the impression you need his blessing really, really badly.)