A Very Serious Debate On Harry Potter Houses (And Their Political Compass Affiliations)

[inthesomeday]

 

[schlaufuchs]

I actually really disagree with the house arrangements there.

Yes Voldemort tried to bring about an authoritarian hellhole, but Slytherins as a group would trend more towards a conservative libertarianism (lone wolves and proud of it). I'd probably put Gryffindor in libertarian left, Ravenclaw in authoritarian left, and Hufflepuff in authoritarian right. Or maybe Gryff in auth-left and Ravenclaw in lib-left. I'm undecided on that one.

 

[inthesomeday]

Hufflepuff is the laborer, completely inclusive and tolerant and with universal solidarity. They accept anybody the other houses won't.

Ravenclaw are all self-important "intellectuals".

I might switch the Slytherins and the Gryffindors, because Gryffindor has more of a crusader aesthetic. But I think a case can be made for Gryffindor as the ideal vanguards of the better world, and of the Slytherins as the """ambitious""" authoritarians.

 

[Traitorfish]

Gryfinndor is authoritarian right. Slytherin is authoritarian right. Ravenclaw is authoritarian right. Hufflepuff is authoritarian right, leaning towards center.

I mean, it's a British public school, you're only going to encounter so much diversity of opinion.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Hufflepuff are collectivist, but also nativist. They're for toleration, but only among those they consider "their people". Consider, for example, how they treat Harry. They're perfectly content to support and befriend Harry as long as aligns with their interests (i.e. beating Slytherin), but the instant he is established in opposition to their tribe (e.g. when he becomes the 2nd Hogwarts champion), they turn on him savagely. It's also fairly easy for Hufflepuffs to fall into "greater good" sorts of thinking. Again, as with perception of Gryffindor being heavily colored by Harry, who has some very distinctly non-Gryffindor tendencies in the way he takes action, a lot of Slytherin's perception comes from Voldemort and the fallout which follows his defeat. Just because Voldemort is Hitler and the Death Eaters are Nazis, doesn't mean Slytherins are authoritarian, right-wing nativists by necessity. Slytherins tend towards a very strong individualism; accomplishing things on their own, by their own faculties, and without having to seek outside help (think Draco's mission to kill Dumbledore where he bristles at the thought of Snape or his mother bailing him out). Even Voldemort doesn't really see any of his allies as anything more than pawns to accomplish his ambitions. He may develop a Nazi-esque credo, but this is little more than a justification he crafts a posteriori to justify his already-existent sadistic interests. To Voldemort, the loyalty of his followers is sustained by some power dynamic and nothing greater. He is, in a way, the perfect realization of a Randian ideal. An Übermensch who starts from nothing, achieves untold power and wealth solely through his own abilities and maintains no loyalties and sentiments but to those who provide some tangible material or political benefit to him personally. And he's perfectly content to discard or destroy them as soon as they cease to provide this function to him.

Slytherins are fiercely loyal, but only to those whom they would consider their "people", and "people" for a Slytherin is decided very rigidly on a case-by-case basis, as opposed to a Hufflepuff who categorizes broadly in tribes. Consider Malfoy with Harry. Malfoy is extremely willing to befriend Harry early on (this even despite him being the catalyst for the destruction of Voldemort), and it is only after Harry declares himself an enemy to Malfoy that Malfoy begins to treat him that way. If that's not right-wing libertarianism (a rigid individualism in which everything must be accomplished by ones own ability and faculty), then I don't know what is.

The reason I'm juggling on whether to put Gryff or Ravenclaw in authoritarian/libertarian left is because Ravenclaws are individualist, while Gryffindor are collectivist. But Ravenclaws are also big on a constructed idealism that could lead rather logically towards a Bolshevism or Maoism of a kind. It's hard to see Gryff as collectivist because their most prominent representative in the source text is Harry, who has very strong lone wolf/individualist tendencies, which I would argue come more from his Slytherin secondary.

My conception of the houses comes largely from here: http://sortinghatchats.tumblr.com/post/121904186113/the-basics

 

[inthesomeday]

That's not even CLOSE to a real quote from Squidward's Labor speech. The others are all direct quotes, why couldn't we get a pull?

Hufflepuff are collectivist, but also nativist. They're for toleration, but only among those they consider "their people". Consider, for example, how they treat Harry. They're perfectly content to support and befriend Harry as long as aligns with their interests (i.e. beating Slytherin), but the instant he is established in opposition to their tribe (e.g. when he becomes the 2nd Hogwarts champion), they turn on him savagely. It's also fairly easy for Hufflepuffs to fall into "greater good" sorts of thinking.

I'm not thinking of how Hufflepuff students act in the books, I'm thinking of how the values of the house are portrayed. The Sorting Hat's songs consistently portray Hufflepuff as above the trait-based (meritocratic) "sorting" of students into houses, and willing to teach any student regardless of purity, honor, or intelligence. Further, the ideal Hufflepuff is always portrayed as a loyal and salt-of-the-earth laborer.

Again, as with perception of Gryffindor being heavily colored by Harry, who has some very distinctly non-Gryffindor tendencies in the way he takes action, a lot of Slytherin's perception comes from Voldemort and the fallout which follows his defeat. Just because Voldemort is Hitler and the Death Eaters are Nazis, doesn't mean Slytherins are authoritarian, right-wing nativists by necessity.

Salazar Slytherin himself, and the entire house's ethos, is built around purity of blood and nobility, the most auth-right of all the houses. Voldemort and his followers always embodied this, yes. That doesn't disprove the characterization.

Slytherins tend towards a very strong individualism; accomplishing things on their own, by their own faculties, and without having to seek outside help (think Draco's mission to kill Dumbledore where he bristles at the thought of Snape or his mother bailing him out). Even Voldemort doesn't really see any of his allies as anything more than pawns to accomplish his ambitions. He may develop a Nazi-esque credo, but this is little more than a justification he crafts a posteriori to justify his already-existent sadistic interests.

None of this contradicts characterization as auth-right. Within every fascist movement, personal achievement and supremacy has come only second to purity. The struggle to be the one who succeeded in the eyes of Voldemort is comparable to be the one who succeeded in the eyes of Hitler, or any other dictator.

Being in the inner circle of the focus of the personality cult is definitive of status in fascism, and this is what all the Death Eaters fought for.

To Voldemort, the loyalty of his followers is sustained by some power dynamic and nothing greater. He is, in a way, the perfect realization of a Randian ideal. An Übermensch who starts from nothing, achieves untold power and wealth solely through his own abilities and maintains no loyalties and sentiments but to those who provide some tangible material or political benefit to him personally. And he's perfectly content to discard or destroy them as soon as they cease to provide this function to him.

It wasn't solely through his own abilities, though, as we can see with the flashbacks to his own childhood he had the same sort of cult of personality based on purity of the blood and right-wing violence that any fascist does. The Death Eaters were mostly schoolyard bully types, much like Riddle himself, who were attracted to the air of violence and supremacy that Voldemort represented. The ideological basis for his rise was the same as that of any fascist: appealing to a crowd of not-really-victimized people who think they're victimized by some scapegoat group (the pureblood Wizarding families, by the Muggle-borns and the Muggles) because of the liberalization of society and the widening of civil rights. Using shows of force to ensure that purity and righteousness will return the reactionary follower base to power.

Think of Umbridge, for example. She wasn't attracted to Voldemort out of any sort of reverence for his abilities or admiration, it was solely due to his actions and message that she became loyal to him. The return of pureblood wizard supremacy, the authoritarian power of the state, the violence to maintain these things were the appeal for her, and indeed for followers similar to her. Only his direct inner circle was composed of the weirdly loyal, like the Carrows and the Lestranges, whose loyalty came from a place of derangement and was absolute rather than conditional based on his power at the time, and this is also reflective of the historical fascist regimes.

Slytherins are fiercely loyal, but only to those whom they would consider their "people", and "people" for a Slytherin is decided very rigidly on a case-by-case basis, as opposed to a Hufflepuff who categorizes broadly in tribes.

The Huffelpuff students are no more or less guilty of this than other students, while the ideals of their house are all about solidarity. Meanwhile the Slytherins fight for popularity, status, and appearance, belonging to a house with ideals based in purity and strength-- and "ambition".

Consider Malfoy with Harry. Malfoy is extremely willing to befriend Harry early on (this even despite him being the catalyst for the destruction of Voldemort), and it is only after Harry declares himself an enemy to Malfoy that Malfoy begins to treat him that way. If that's not right-wing libertarianism (a rigid individualism in which everything must be accomplished by ones own ability and faculty), then I don't know what is.

The myth of the superman is, aside from one particular writer, more widely associated with the fascist ideas of the auth-right. The strength and purity of the base of support for a movement, and of its leader, has never been associated with right-libertarianism outside of Ayn Rand, who is something of a joke in my experience. It's a shame, because I think she's right about a lot of stuff.

The reason I'm juggling on whether to put Gryff or Ravenclaw in authoritarian/libertarian left is because Ravenclaws are individualist, while Gryffindor are collectivist. But Ravenclaws are also big on a constructed idealism that could lead rather logically towards a Bolshevism or Maoism of a kind. It's hard to see Gryff as collectivist because their most prominent representative in the source text is Harry, who has very strong lone wolf/individualist tendencies, which I would argue come more from his Slytherin secondary.

The real meat of right-libertarian ideology is the devotion to (their brand of) logic. Individualism, in its true form, independent of the ability to amass followers or feats of violent strength, at the intersection of economic autocracy, is ideally all about rewarding the most intelligent or capable of reason. The extent to which the ideals of Ravenclaw as a house are discussed in the books is generally that the most intelligent or clever are regarded above all else. This fits in nicely with the holier-than-thou narrative of right-libertarians.

Meanwhile Gryffindor, with its focus on honor and defending the weak, seems to nicely reflect vanguardism or general auth-left faith in the ability of the right group of ideological custodians to serve the proletariat.

My conception of the houses comes largely from here: http://sortinghatchats.tumblr.com/post/121904186113/the-basics

You should read the books. The Sorting Hat tends to characterize each with one word: Gryffindor are brave, Slytherin are ambitious, Hufflepuff are loyal, and Ravenclaw are clever. Through flashbacks and historical dialogue we learn more about each house and its founder; particularly that Gryffindor was thought of as protective of the Muggle-borns, and a fierce fighter but with little understanding of their actual desires, Slytherin was a racial purists and wizard supremacist, Ravenclaw was a sort of detached and elitist intellectual, and Hufflepuff was a jolly and personable but also hardily inclusive and tolerant idealist.

 

[Lexicus]

That's not even CLOSE to a real quote from Squidward's Labor speech. The others are all direct quotes, why couldn't we get a pull?

THE GENTLE LABOURER SHALL NO LONGER SUFFER

You should read the books.

Ooooh you shouldn't of gone there

It wasn't solely through his own abilities, though, as we can see with the flashbacks to his own childhood he had the same sort of cult of personality based on purity of the blood and right-wing violence that any fascist does. The Death Eaters were mostly schoolyard bully types, much like Riddle himself, who were attracted to the air of violence and supremacy that Voldemort represented. The ideological basis for his rise was the same as that of any fascist: appealing to a crowd of not-really-victimized people who think they're victimized by some scapegoat group (the pureblood Wizarding families, by the Muggle-borns and the Muggles) because of the liberalization of society and the widening of civil rights. Using shows of force to ensure that purity and righteousness will return the reactionary follower base to power.

I don't really agree with this analysis. The ideological basis for Voldemort's rule seemed to be more based on his personal power as a wizard, and the fear he inspired due to that power, than any more sophisticated ideological basis. Obviously casual bigotry against Muggle-borns and nonhuman magical creatures like House Elves pervades magical society, but I don't think there are many 'true believers' among the Death Eaters; according to Dumbledore, "they were a motley collection; a mixture of the weak seeking protection, the ambitious seeking some shared glory, and the thuggish gravitating toward a leader who could show them more refined forms of cruelty".

Remember, Voldemort doesn't take over the Ministry of Magic on the basis of a mass political movement the way real-life fascists did. There are no mass politics and apparently no elections or parliamentary bodies of any kind in the Wizarding World, which seems more comparable to pre-industrial societies organized on the basis of self-sufficient households than to a highly specialized and interdependent industrial-capitalist society.

Of course, the political economy of the Harry Potter universe is all sort of ridiculous. It makes absolutely no sense for the society as described in the books to use gold coins for exchange. The Ministry is never portrayed as taxing or spending and 'governance' in the Wizarding world appears to consist mainly of maintaining the Masquerade and preventing Wizards from killing one another or hurting each other too severely.

Anyway Voldemort comes to power through a violent coup, and never really has any kind of mass support.

Ideologically, though, it's clear that Slytherin are top right, as the obsession with blood purity means that they aren't "really" individualists. They clearly judge people not as individuals but as part of the group they're in, with pure-bloods being at the top of the hierarchy. It's difficult to say which quadrants the other houses would fall into. My standard for judgment would be actions rather than sorting; the students who stick with Harry in book 5 are the furthest lib-left bunch at Hogwarts while those who licked Umbridge's boots (Slytherins) are obviously top-right.

Of course, the political compass leanings of the houses needs to be seen as a tendency rather than a mechanical fact, because there are clear exceptions to the rules for each House. Slughorn doesn't appear to be particularly bigoted against Muggle-borns, for example, and Cormac McLaggen is definitely a top-right sort of guy.

 

[inthesomeday]

THE GENTLE LABOURER SHALL NO LONGER SUFFER

That's what I'm talking about right there

I don't really agree with this analysis. The ideological basis for Voldemort's rule seemed to be more based on his personal power as a wizard, and the fear he inspired due to that power, than any more sophisticated ideological basis.

That's where his more fanatic support comes from, most certainly; people who genuinely seem to love him, like Lestrange, admire his personal abilities and think he should rule for his strength. These guys are a really small minority of his support though, which grows quickly in both of his rises to power from a core of about a dozen, to hundreds, to what seems to be a majority of the functioning government. And most of those supporters are there for the general ideology of might makes right, which definitely has fantastic synergy with his own personal abilities and tendency to demonstrate but is nonetheless distinct.

Obviously casual bigotry against Muggle-borns and nonhuman magical creatures like House Elves pervades magical society, but I don't think there are many 'true believers' among the Death Eaters; according to Dumbledore, "they were a motley collection; a mixture of the weak seeking protection, the ambitious seeking some shared glory, and the thuggish gravitating toward a leader who could show them more refined forms of cruelty".

'True believers', I would argue, were the ones that followed Voldemort out of devoted admiration. Surprisingly, the message he tries to directly export actually seems moreso to be that of his own superiority, whereas the bits about maintaining the supremacy of the pureblood families seem to be secondary to the cult of personality he tries to build. This is, I think, why people like the Malfoys, the Crabbes, and the Goyles were so able to reintegrate to mainstream Wizarding society after his first fall, because they had never bought the cult but had always supported the implicit ideology. The Dumbledore quote seems to ignore this group entirely. The Malfoys didn't seem particularly weak, ambitious, or thuggish; they simply seemed to be a conservative, bourgeois family doing what needed to be done to protect their interests. This, combined with the more reactionary/authoritarian elements of the pre-existing government, was probably the group to which most of Voldemort's followers belonged. The supporters of the ideology who paid loyalty to the overt god complex of the leader as a penance.

Remember, Voldemort doesn't take over the Ministry of Magic on the basis of a mass political movement the way real-life fascists did. There are no mass politics and apparently no elections or parliamentary bodies of any kind in the Wizarding World, which seems more comparable to pre-industrial societies organized on the basis of self-sufficient households than to a highly specialized and interdependent industrial-capitalist society.

...

Anyway Voldemort comes to power through a violent coup, and never really has any kind of mass support.

The macroeconomics and governmental politics of the Wizarding world are not extensively touched on in the Harry Potter books, this is true; it would probably make the books incredibly boring to most mainstream audiences. However I would disagree that there was no mass support or takeover of the Ministry. While never overtly stated in the books, I think it's heavily implied that a large portion of the Ministry knew that the Death Eaters had succeeded in their coup, and in fact that the political establishment had largely fallen into complicity with the new regime. When the gang break into the Ministry, it's shown that Death Eaters have openly taken positions of power, and that the more authoritarian elements of the government that had already been in power (I.E. Umbridge) were more than happy to contribute to the Death Eater rule.
We know that potentially subversive elements (Kingsley Shacklebolt, Rufus Scrimgoeur) have already been killed or forced into exile, and we know that the undesirables are in the process of exclusion. I think this follows as closely and consistently as is possible in the Wizarding world to the real rise of fascist movements in the real world. The replacement of the statue in the main hall of the Ministry, and the adoption of a new openly supremacist governing style shows that the process is open, and Thicknesse doesn't seem to be fooling anybody. Furthermore, we see grassroots enforcers of the regime, both voluntary (like the wandering gang that catches Harry, Ron, and Hermione for breaking the taboo) and coerced (like Xenophilius Lovegood) independent of the government carrying out the will of the Death Eaters, which implies that this sort of support is mainstream in some degree.
Though Voldemort himself is never literally elected, I believe there are sufficient clues in the books to show that his regime and its ideas have popular support enough to compare his rise and ideology to that of real-life fascism.

Of course, the political economy of the Harry Potter universe is all sort of ridiculous. It makes absolutely no sense for the society as described in the books to use gold coins for exchange. The Ministry is never portrayed as taxing or spending and 'governance' in the Wizarding world appears to consist mainly of maintaining the Masquerade and preventing Wizards from killing one another or hurting each other too severely.

This is something we definitely see change with the ascension of the "Thicknesse" regime. Direct authoritarian interference with people's lives becomes commonplace, almost to the point of totalitarianism (taboo, Muggle-born inspections, etc).

Of course, the political compass leanings of the houses needs to be seen as a tendency rather than a mechanical fact, because there are clear exceptions to the rules for each House. Slughorn doesn't appear to be particularly bigoted against Muggle-borns, for example, and Cormac McLaggen is definitely a top-right sort of guy.

Definitely.

 

[Lexicus]

The Malfoys didn't seem particularly weak, ambitious, or thuggish

But the Malfoys are undeniably portrayed as both weak and thuggish. Ambitious, not so much, since they already occupied the upper echelon of society, but certainly Malfoy and his father (and to a lesser extent his mother) are thuggish, taking a sadistic pleasure in "run of the mill" cruelty and bullying, but toward the end of the series they cannot hang with the likes of Voldemort and Bellatrix because they're fundamentally weak - they lack the courage of their convictions. Malfoy jokes a lot about killing and stuff in books 1-4 but when it comes to actual killing it's not so funny. Indeed, one of the interesting things about the seventh book is the way in which Voldemort's takeover allows someone like Crabbe to grow so much more dangerous than Malfoy.

The macroeconomics and governmental politics of the Wizarding world are not extensively touched on in the Harry Potter books, this is true; it would probably make the books incredibly boring to most mainstream audiences.

Rowling doesn't know enough about political economy or history to do realistic worldbuilding in that area anyway. I mean, she's a Blairite after all...

I think this follows as closely and consistently as is possible in the Wizarding world to the real rise of fascist movements in the real world.

Well, that was obviously the comparison Rowling was going for but for reasons I've given above I'm not sure it really works.

Though Voldemort himself is never literally elected, I believe there are sufficient clues in the books to show that his regime and its ideas have popular support enough to compare his rise and ideology to that of real-life fascism.

I think that the clues indicate the opposite. Voldemort's followers, whether Death Eaters or Snatchers or what have you, are depicted as a very small minority. The Battle of Hogwarts has Voldemort's followers very quickly outnumbered as soon as the 'hard core' around Harry actually begins openly resisting Voldemort which inspires other people to resist as well. Voldemort's rule basically falls apart overnight because it's not based on a robust mass politics or ideological engagement with the regime, it's more based on fear than anything else.

Direct authoritarian interference with people's lives becomes commonplace, almost to the point of totalitarianism (taboo, Muggle-born inspections, etc).

But there isn't really any evidence of this in the text. We know that members of the Order of the Phoenix were being watched closely but we don't have any real evidence of how other people were treated. The taboo was irrelevant to the vast majority of people because they never said Voldemort's name anyway. The Muggle-born inspections affect (presumably) a small proportion of the population though we don't know what percentage of the wizarding population is actually Muggle-born.

 

[Traitorfish]

You should read the books. The Sorting Hat tends to characterize each with one word: Gryffindor are brave, Slytherin are ambitious, Hufflepuff are loyal, and Ravenclaw are clever.

 

[Ajidica]

Slughorn doesn't appear to be particularly bigoted against Muggle-borns, for example,

Haven't read the book in a long time, but I can't remember what traits Slughorn had that made him "Slytherin" besides continuing their fondness for dungeons. He isn't a bigot and all around seemed a pretty normal human being.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Haven't read the book in a long time, but I can't remember what traits Slughorn had that made him "Slytherin" besides continuing their fondness for dungeons. He isn't a bigot and all around seemed a pretty normal human being.

Because being a Slytherin isn't about being a bigot. Being a Slytherin is about being ambitious to strictly personal ends (whatever those ends may be) which can at times border on self-sided. Slughorn collects and connects individuals, both as a form of self-aggrandizement (both for ego-stroking and to facilitate future collection) and as a form of political advancement (not in order to snatch power per se, but as a creation of soft influence which he can exert to get things he may want in future, like Quidditch tickets or invitations to dinner functions in the Ministry) as well as political insulation. That's what rests at the heart of the Slytherin ethos. They have personal ambitions and they pursue them by whatever means necessary, collecting and discarding tools and individuals as they see fit.

This is in contrast, say, to the Ravenclaws, who, through a process of introspection and inspection develop an ethical, moral, or ideological framework through which they approach the world, and the Gryffindors, whose moral code always involves viewing the self in relation to how it can be applied to (the at least nominal benefit of) others, the Slytherin is always and solely concerned with the self and fulfilling the needs of the self. Sometimes the needs of the self can be selfless - as in the case of Snape's sacrifice for the sake of Lily and her son, or in the case of Narcissa's betrayal of Voldemort for the immediate preservation of her family - but these selfless acts are always seen through the lens of the individual and the individual's personal interests. The true opposite of Slytherin is not Gryffindor, but Hufflepuff

Mostly I don't buy "racial purity" as the real criterion for Slytherin because it seems like a really unsustainable methodology when, by even the 1930s, purity had been so severely reduced that the entire histories and genealogies of all of the remaining pure-blood families could be reduced in toto to a single volume text. Even pre-Voldemort massacre you're looking at, like, one or two pure-bloods entering Hogwarts and joining Slytherin per year, tops. And two, Harry Freaking Potter, a half-blood son of a Mudblood, whose pureblood line had at that point already been declared blood-traitor was one prejudice-inducing meeting with Malfoy and one biased opinion of a Weasley away from himself becoming a Slytherin.

 

[Ajidica]

How much of this is expressed in the books and how much is after the fact tumblr posts?
Because it seems to me Rowling was trying to introduce a bunch of "alternative" characters to present different takes on the Houses but then realized that would require competent characterizations and said screw it.

 

[Lexicus]

Because it seems to me Rowling was trying to introduce a bunch of "alternative" characters to present different takes on the Houses but then realized that would require competent characterizations and said screw it.

Mostly I don't buy "racial purity" as the real criterion for Slytherin because it seems like a really unsustainable methodology when, by even the 1930s, purity had been so severely reduced that the entire histories and genealogies of all of the remaining pure-blood families could be reduced in toto to a single volume text.

I mean dude this exactly like real-life racism except in real life there was never any purity to begin with

 

[schlaufuchs]

How much of this is expressed in the books and how much is after the fact tumblr posts?
Because it seems to me Rowling was trying to introduce a bunch of "alternative" characters to present different takes on the Houses but then realized that would require competent characterizations and said screw it.

About half-and-half. The Houses as they are are a really poor taxonomy for any kind of actual scrutiny or intellectual discussion. Traitorfish already pointed this out, but any kind of serious discussion adhering strictly to canon text goes entirely out the window when a) one house is explicitly for "evil nazi-types" and one house is explicitly for "hard-working folks who aren't particularly smart or brave or a dick", and b) the entirety of everything save a handful of short vignettes is told from the perspective of a person who a priori sees the Slytherins and all of their ilk as fundamentally evil.

You have to extrapolate a bit if you want to have any kind of fun with this thing. I mean if you want to shift to talking about the 4 Nations from Avatar and how they'd fit on the political compass instead, I'm down with that.

 

[Synobun]

Do you guys want this Harry Potter discussion split off into OT? I found myself stumbling into this thread after a wrong turn and these are not political compass memes, no sir.

 

[Lexicus]

Split it into humor, it's all just joking. I mean my lecture on the political economy of Harry Potter was meant to be comical, anyway.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Split it into humor, it's all just joking. I mean my lecture on the political economy of Harry Potter was meant to be comical, anyway.

Yeah, don't drag it back to OT, please.

 

[inthesomeday]

Split it into humor, it's all just joking. I mean my lecture on the political economy of Harry Potter was meant to be comical, anyway.

Well I've been taking it 100% seriously and plan to split into the First Marxist-Hufflepuffist International.

 

[Lexicus]

Thinking Slytherin isn't top-right is revisionist!