Harry Potter author JK Rowling dropped rhetorical nukes on Emma Watson, who starred as Hermione Granger in the popular Harry Potter film series that launched her career.
For the last ten years or so, the three main actors made famous and rich by the Harry Potter film franchise — Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Watson — have publicly attacked Rowling for her refusal to join the trans cult. Rowling takes no issue with adults who wish to parade around as the opposite sex. On that score, like most of us, live and let live is her motto. Where Rowling draws the line is in a sane place: Let kids be kids. Stop mutilating children. Biological men have no place in what should be private and safe places for women: restrooms, locker rooms, prisons, and women’s shelters.
For her perfectly reasonable and compassionate beliefs, and because she is 1) a woman, 2) a wealthy woman, 3) an influential woman, and 4) a very, very smart woman, she has faced a decade of hate, death threats, blacklisting, and public menacing.
Additionally, Rowling has watched three people she made famous (Rowling was deeply involved in the movies), and who has known since they were ten-year-olds, repeatedly and publicly stab her in the back. All three Harry Potter stars have, in my opinion, abused this woman to pimp their careers by sounding virtuous even — and this is unforgivable — as they knew they were adding fuel to the hate inferno that threatened Rowling’s career and safety.
Nevertheless, until this month, Rowling never pushed back against the three of them, at least not by name. That changed this week when that sleazy little mercenary Emma Watson slithered out from under a rock and said this:
I really don’t believe that by having had that experience and holding the love and support and views that I have, means that I can’t and don’t treasure Jo [Rowling] and the person that I had personal experiences with…
I think it’s my deepest wish that I hope people who don’t agree with my opinion will love me, and I hope I can keep loving people who I don’t necessarily share the same opinion with. I guess where I’ve landed is it’s not so much what we say or what we believe, but very often how we say it that’s really important…
As a young woman, for her to have written that character and created that world, given me an opportunity which, to be honest, barely exists in the history of English literature — there’s just no world in which I could ever cancel her out or cancel that out.
Rowling, who is no one’s fool, saw this for exactly what it was and initially responded with this:
On Monday, Rowling decided to finally let it fly against the privileged, two-faced Watson — and it was glorious:
You’ll want to read the whole thing, but here’s the privileged part…
“Like other people who’ve never experienced adult life uncushioned by wealth and fame, Emma has so little experience of real life she’s ignorant of how ignorant she is,” Rowling writes. “Has [Emma] had to strip off in a newly mixed-sex changing room at a council-run swimming pool? Is she ever likely to need a state-run rape crisis centre that refuses to guarantee an all-female service? To find herself sharing a prison cell with a male rapist who’s identified into the women’s prison?”
Unlike Emma Watson, Rowling explains, “I wasn’t a multimillionaire at fourteen. I lived in poverty while writing the book that made Emma famous. I therefore understand from my own life experience what the trashing of women’s rights in which Emma has so enthusiastically participated means to women and girls without her privileges.”
Then Rowling gets to the two-faced part…
“The greatest irony here is that, had Emma not decided in her most recent interview to declare that she loves and treasures me — a change of tack I suspect she’s adopted because she’s noticed full-throated condemnation of me is no longer quite as fashionable as it was — I might never have been this honest.”
Rowling closes with this…
“Adults can’t expect to cosy up to an activist movement that regularly calls for a friend’s assassination, then assert their right to the former friend’s love, as though the friend was in fact their mother.”
My guess is that one of the reasons Rowling took it easy on these ungrateful brats is because when you’re an adult who meets little kids when they are still little kids, you always see them this way. I’m sure Rowling felt motherly towards them, which is why she remained silent.
But Emma Watson and the other two are 35 years old now. They’re adults. And I have no doubt Rowling would accept a sincere apology and reconciliation. But Rowling is no fool. She sees Watson for the spoiled, privileged, ungrateful opportunist she is.
At the risk of her career and status, Rowling has been 100 percent principled in fighting against this trans-sociopathy. And in doing so, she has not only helped shape public opinion, but she made it safe for others to voice some sanity, which is helping to turn the tide.
Rowling currently stands on the right side of history, which means she is once again a kingmaker in the world of entertainment and knows a Uriah Heep when she sees one.
John Nolte’s first and last novel, Borrowed Time, is winning five-star raves from everyday readers. You can read an excerpt here and an in-depth review here. Also available in hardcover and on Kindle and Audiobook.
Read the full article here