M. Williams





A relative recently invited me to watch a Harry Potter film with them on the television. In the interest of politeness, and a rather morbid curiosity to review the films again in light of traditional Catholic, counter-revolutionary principles, I agreed. Of course, I'm already quite aware that the Harry Potter books and films are evil, as is the case with most modern books and movies. Perhaps due to a strong childhood interest I had in the Harry Potter franchise, a rather perverse sense of nostalgia motivated me to re-review the films. Watching the first Harry Potter film spurred me on to do some further research into the series, whose insidious nature I'm quite aware of.





Umbridge is designed as a caricature of

the counter-revolutionary Catholic In this article, I have decided to analyse an angle of the Harry Potter series not yet addressed, at least as far as I'm aware. I decided to do some research on a character found in Book 5 (Order of the Phoenix, by J.K. Rowling) of the Harry Potter series: Dolores Umbridge, a professor who rises to becoming headmaster of the Hogwarts school of magic. In this article, I have decided to analyse an angle of the Harry Potterseries not yet addressed, at least as far as I'm aware. I decided to do some research on a character found in Book 5 (, by J.K. Rowling) of the Harry Potterseries:Dolores Umbridge, a professor who rises to becoming headmaster of the Hogwarts school of magic.





A not-so-subtle attack

The character of Umbridge is really a not-so subtle attack on Catholicism and the Counter-Revolution (the true counter-revolution, I immediately realised in the course of my research that Dolores Umbridge is a caricature of a traditionalist, counter-revolutionary woman. I believe the character of Umbridge is portrayed as evil in order to subconsciously alter the perceptions of young people towards those of a premodern moral palette.(the true counter-revolution, not the organisation masquerading itself as Catholic that uses this name ).





Here are the reasons I believe this to be the case. First, Umbridge is distinguished in the series for good taste in dress. Unlike the other characters in the series, who are often described as dressing improperly or extravagantly, Umbridge is always seen wearing professional, modest women's clothing, usually in a shade of pink or purple. Note this in the picture left, in addition to the hat, the brooch, and the handbag.

Umbridge's good taste office as portrayed in the film, above; the

film portrays Umbridge's good customs as oppressive, below



Second, Umbridge embodies femininity almost to the point of excesses (the frills on her costume imply frumpiness). Of course, excesses are to be expected from a character who is designed to be a caricature. Umbridge's office is decorated in the feminine shades of pink, complete with pictures of kittens on the walls, doilies on the tables, and generally speaking, good taste. I believe good decorating taste springs, directly or indirectly, from counter-revolutionary principles, so opposed to the evil and brutalist modern designs of our times.

Third, Professor Umbridge, particularly in her eventual role as "High Inquisitor" (more on that later) and Headmistress of the magical Hogwarts school, is seen promoting good customs and mannerisms. To that end, she enforces a public distancing between the boys and girls of the primarily teen-aged school (a wise practice) to prevent any untoward intimacy. She prohibits sloppy clothing and styles, being seen in the films using her wand (of course, from a distance) to nonchalantly tighten the loosened ties of a group of boys, and tucking in their untucked shirts. A boy and a girl seen kissing each other are struck with a hex, and go flying in opposite directions from one another. Professor Umbridge bans frivolous magazines and publications, asserts her supervisory control over student clubs and organisations to promote morality...



Umbridge even fights superstition at the school, which is rife with astrology and fortune telling, going so far as to fire the professor of fortune-telling. This too is commendable. I believe it shows she is the most resembling a counter-revolutionary character in the books, which for something as unholy as Harry Potter, is really saying something.





These are just a few examples of the good, counter-revolutionary tendencies portrayed by Professor Umbridge in this otherwise quite wicked series. Of course, the series is evil in itself due to its positive portrayal of witchcraft, and Umbridge is no exception to this. However, her character is interesting for analysis not just for these reasons, but for others as well.

The "High Inquisitor"

Even more disturbing

Centaurs were known in Greek mythology to be

creatures of lust and vice, often raping human women

Rowling allegedly (per Fr. Ripperger) attended witch school before writing the series;

At least some of the pseudo-Latin [!] spells in the book are real;

Characters in the series are named after demons;

Demons either inspired Rowling to write it, or they wrote it by possessing Rowling;

The series, even if all else is incorrect, garbage by premodern (read: real) standards of good literature.

Final considerations

Posted 18 June 2018

I think my beliefs regarding Umbridge being a caricature of the counter-revolution are confirmed by J.K. Rowling's not-so-subtle jab at the Catholic Church. Further in the novel, the magical government which oversees the Hogwarts school gives Umbridge more power to continue her counter-revolutionary work, appointing her to the title of "High Inquisitor". To any reader, it should be clear that the use of the termalludes to the historical Universal and Roman Inquisition, which has been so sorely misunderstood and calumniated for hundreds of years. Not that we athave any issue with what the Inquisition did -- let me go on the record saying it should have done much more. I believe Rowling's use of this title for her character is, among other things, a propaganda technique to subconsciously promote the Black Legend In a respectable book series, the character of Umbridge wouldn't appear quite as virtuous in comparison to the other characters, as ideally, the opponents of Umbridge would exceed her in virtue and act as true protagonists. Umbridge could then be used as a moral archetype of uncharity, hardheartedness, totalitarianism and vanity. But Rowling doesn't promote a good alternative protagonist to Umbridge in her franchise. Instead, like many relativistic novels of our time marketed for children, (like, the, etc; all of which are inspired from Harry Potter), the "protagonists" are actually destructive. For the counter-revolutionary reader who bothers to pick up a frivolous book like Harry Potter, it's hard to identify with the author's appointed protagonists because they are so morally deficient.Indeed, in modern "literature" and film, the traditional roles of protagonist vs. antagonist are reversed (e.g., the disgraceful Maleficent film, 2014 ), or the dichotomy of good and evil is scrapped altogether, with both "sides" being immoral (one recent example of this is the Amazon-produced film series, which is quite entertaining, but also totally nihilistic). One film series I haven't watched, but am familiar with,, (and I do not intend to watch it except perhaps to review and analyse it), is also lacking in any clear, morally acceptable protagonist.Traditional storytelling may be gone, but authors have never abandoned the "moral of the story" -- just with Rowling, the moral of her story is a poor one.I believe my analysis, while covering something not yet discussed about the awful Harry Potter franchise, only scratches the surface of its demonic nature. Rowling isn't satisfied to simply have Umbridge removed from her offices at the school, being fired in disgrace, which happens at the end of the book. Rowling goes a step further into the truly horrendous. For the reader of this article, I would suggest prudence if you continue to read, as you may find the following to be disturbing.At the end of the book, Harry Potter and his friend Hermione lure Professor Umbridge into the Forbidden Forest outside the school, in which lurks all sorts of monstrous creatures and horrors. They lure her into the Forest to her certain death. Although Umbridge does not die, she is subjected to something far more hideous -- a pack of centaurs native to the forest find her and capture her.Now, as a child, when I first read these books, the subliminal implication Rowling places here did not occur to me. In fact, I didn't realise it until recently, during the course of my research on the series. What I learned was horrifying:Professor Umbridge, who had been a caricature of a virtuous, modest, counter-revolutionary woman, was forcibly deprived of her virtue (that is, raped) by the centaurs.Although this is never explicitly claimed in the book, the theory that Professor Umbridge loses her virtue to the centaurs is heavily implied . I just never realised it because it never occured to me that Rowling would be so perverted.But is it really so implausible? Fr. Ripperger, FSSP, has spoken and written on the Harry Potter phenomenon in the past. I've attached a video,, that summarises Fr. Ripperger's very insightful position on Harry Potter, and have summarised just a few of his points:One short example that reinforces the diabolic implications in the series is the tale of Nicolas Flamel, told in both the first book and film of the franchise. Both the book and the film casually mention Flamel, who, having gained immortality due to acquiring the famed Philosopher's Stone, currently "lives at the age of 665". Why was that number chosen by the author? It could hardly be coincidental. It's intentional.While Fr. Ripperger's claims -- which we ought to accept as factual in charity -- are enough to condemn the books, discerning and equipped Catholic scholars of a counter-revolutionary persuasion should, in my opinion, continue to examine these books, perhaps with the advice, consent, and supervision of a traditional Catholic priest. Although I agree with Fr. Ripperger's assessment that the books are "garbage", I also believe exposing them for the frivolities that they are can be useful for the counter-revolution in literature and popular culture.With the Harry Potter series continuing with prequels, sequels, and rumours of new books in the works, the fight against this perversion in our culture has not ended yet. While others should simply burn Harry Potter paraphernalia and remove it from their home, those with good reason should continue to analyse and examine these books for counter-revolutionary purposes.Indeed, the devil is in the details. In addition, with further examination of the books and films, from the implications of rape (on more than one occasion), to the "coincidental" use of the number 665, we can be sure Rowling's hideous subconscious revolution aimed at the minds of young readers is just scratching the surface of her insidious creation.