Hysterical Bluesky leftists say watching newest Harry Potter series is 'genocidal'



While many Harry Potter fans are preparing for the latest rendition of the fabulously popular "Harry Potter" fantasy franchise, liberals on Bluesky are raging at anyone who might stab the transgender movement in the back.

Many have turned against the series after author J.K. Rowling unapologetically defended women's rights against the interests of the transgender agenda.

'F**k that hateful witch i wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire.'

On Bluesky, the left-wing alternative to the X social media platform, the activists are especially vicious against Rowling. The boycott calls centered around a screed at the Verge claiming Rowling was using her wealth to erase trans people "from existence."

"Supporting this genocidal bulls**t in a world with 1,345,869,098 other TV shows you haven’t watched yet is unnecessary and harmful," read one response.

"Rowling is a fascist and supporting her show enables it to continue," replied another critic.

"Oppressing a micro-minority from position of power to try and stay relative in an attention economy. A group posing no threat to you or society," said another detractor.

"The unaffected cis people clinging onto their emotional support franchise like the last drop of heroin in a needle is crazy," said another critic.

"The average [Harry Potter] fan would rather push us into a woodchipper than give it up."

"F**k that hateful witch i wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire," said another critic. "I'm definitely not watching that s**t."

"I’m keeping a list of the HBO Harry Potter actors just so I can never watch their s**t ever again. F**k all of them. Make that show poisonous and career-destroying, just like their hateful hearts," said one in response to the HBO trailer.

Another critic called the series fundamentally bad because it's "classist, racist, pro-slavery, pro-cop, regressive, anti-revolutionary."

RELATED: JK Rowling goes scorched-earth on Emma Watson's privileged woke activism: 'She's ignorant'

Rowling has faced the criticism on social media with re-energized attacks on the transgender agenda. She has also had to distance herself from some of the Harry Potter film actors over the issue.

"Men defining what a woman is, what women should and shouldn’t fear, what women should and shouldn’t say, what rights women should be fine with giving up and, of course, what constitutes ‘real’ misogyny: get a bloody mirror," Rowling posted in 2023.

"That’s real misogyny, looking right back at you," she added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

America: A nihilistic nursery for kidults of all ages



America is in a schizophrenic mash-up that reverses childhood innocence and adult licentiousness. We treat children as if they were louche, hedonistic adults while we treat grown-ups like they’re still learning primary colors on wooden blocks.

A visit to a restaurant in a tourist town in Vermont crystallized it for me. Stay with me while I set this up, then we’ll take a visit to an eatery I call There Will Be Pictures in Bright, Primary Colors!

I asked a kid of about 14 for a knife. He looked at me blankly. So I went native: 'A sticky-downy sharpie?'

This may be a new thought for some people, this reversal of childhood and adulthood. But it’s easy to see once you have your eyes pointed to it.

'Drag kids'

America is a country where it’s legal and socially praised to chemically and sexually mutilate abused children. We call these abused children “transgender kids.”

There’s a reason President Trump had to announce that public schools risk losing federal funding if they participate in this depraved farce. It has indeed become normalized to cry happy tears while we watch parents (nearly always mothers) destroy their children's bodies and minds with hormones, surgeries, and the lie that they can become the opposite sex.

This brutality started with so-called “drag kids”: minor boys dressed up like female prostitutes and paraded in gay bars and before cameras shaking their “moneymakers.” Remember “Desmond Is Amazing,” the “drag kid” featured gyrating and affecting a transvestite hooker attitude? Adults started filming his abuse and putting it on social media in 2015. Within a few years, parents were going beyond dresses and all the way to chemical castration, cross-sex hormones, and actual surgical castration.

Hufflepuff hell

Let’s look at the other side, the childification of adulthood. I started noticing it in the 2010s when fully grown adults were putting bumper stickers on their cars telling everyone what Harry Potter “house” they belonged to. Since when did 30-year-olds cling to a series of children’s books about witches and wizards to “identify” themselves to their grown peers?

We used to look forward to adulthood. But something changed with the Millennial generation: Teenagers were begging to remain children for the first time in history. (Boomers and Gen Xers: This is our fault. We “raised” them.) Sixteen-year-olds once longed for the independence of a driver's license. Today? Why learn to drive when Uber will cart you around like an entitled toddler (car seat not included)?

These two inversions — the adultification of childhood and the childification of adulthood — collide in a supernova at a restaurant I recently visited, a taco place in one of those Vermont tourist towns tucked between two peaks of the Green Mountains. Let’s call it Ms. Rachel’s Taqueria and Play-Skool.

'Saccharine babble'

Why “Ms. Rachel’s”? Because the tone of the place is like that awful YouTube woman who sings saccharine babble to babies on YouTube and gets 20 million mothers watching it.

“Ms. Rachel’s” has a lot going for it. The food was great, and the staff were all friendly, which is a rarity in New England these days.

But it’s got a lot going against it too, and that starts with the staff’s stage names. Our waiter was a handsome Irish guy of about 19 years. He announced what I assume is his “Mexican name” to the table behind us.

“Hi there, I’m going to be taking care of you today,” he said to the party next to us. “My name is Hooley-Anne.”

Hooley-Anne’s name was obviously “Julian,” but I suppose that wouldn’t have been “authentic” enough. Hooley-Anne did a great job, but it was impossible to keep a straight face talking to him after this. OK, I confess: I had a giggle attack that had my hands over my face while I cried silently with shaking shoulders.

When the food got there, it arrived on an aluminum baking sheet without utensils.

I asked a kid of about 14 for a knife. He looked at me blankly. So I went native: “A sticky-downy sharpie?”

He brought me a butter knife.

RELATED: Want yesterday’s quality today? Stop 'upgrading' your appliances

Found Image Holdings Inc./smartstock/Getty Images

Tummy trouble

The problems continued with the menus.

“Greens and other fun colors.” “Bevs.”

It got worse when you flipped it over. Apparently adult diners need to be guided through concepts like “appetizers” and “tacos” and “burritos.”

Get it? “Horizontal eats”? In case you didn’t understand special-needs-ese, that means “tacos.” But what about the vertical “eats”?

Tee-hee-giggle-coo! Isn’t it just adorable?

No, it’s insulting. If you’re at least 45 years old, cast your mind back 20 years. I don’t think you remember being regularly spoken to (or written to) in the tone of voice we associate with a "Romper Room" hostess.

Now it’s everywhere. You see it in the ugly faux-cubist “art style” that dominates pamphlets and announcements called “Corporate Memphis.” It’s all over chain restaurant menus that call sandwiches “sammies” (giggle-coo!) or “hand-helds.”

How long until it’s just “eatables”?

Potty humor

The other side of this coin showed up when I went to the bathroom at "Ms. Rachel’s." Remember, these are the same bathrooms that adults and children use.

There are multiple problems.

1. The restaurant is showing off its woke credentials by conspicuously bragging that it doesn't care what “gender” you are — you can even be a Sasquatch or an alien (giggle-coo)!

2. “Cute” vulgarity — a cartoon depiction of feces shaped like soft-serve ice cream in a kiddy drawing style — tells children there’s no such thing as respectable public behavior. Potty humor is just normal now, even in a place where you eat.

Yes, I am saying that I think this kind of display harms children. This is the cultural, visual, and conceptual background that is forming children’s character. The adults have abandoned propriety, and they’re shoving it in children’s faces. This may be less extreme than the broad daylight displays of sexual depravity that people call “Pride parades” for “families,” but it’s only a matter of degree.

But what do I know? I’m just a stupid old Boomer, even though I’m only 52 (everyone goes from hip-mod-with-it-youth to “stupid Boomer” without stopping at Gen X these days). Why can’t I just let people enjoy things?

Hope I haven’t yucked your yum.

Harry Potter fans failed the Harry Potter test



Every week on my “Dangerous Laughter” podcast, I speak with people whose ideas deserve a hearing, whether the cultural gatekeepers approve or not.

Sometimes the guest is a politician. Sometimes a journalist. Sometimes a historian. Last week, it was Solomon Schmidt, author of “A Pen to Change the World: The Life of J.K. Rowling,” a biography that should have been among the easiest books in the world to promote.

Somewhere along the way, ‘He Who Must Not Be Named’ stopped being a fictional villain. For too many people, it became the woman who imagined him.

Instead, its reception has become a case study in modern publishing cowardice.

Schmidt told me that organizations serving independent bookstores declined to carry advertising for the book. Harry Potter fan communities that once celebrated every Rowling project have shown little interest in discussing a biography of the woman who created Hogwarts. Media outlets that ordinarily rush to cover major literary releases have largely looked away.

Consider the absurdity.

J.K. Rowling is not an obscure novelist seeking her first break. She created the most successful book series in modern publishing history. Her novels have sold hundreds of millions of copies, been translated around the world, inspired blockbuster films, and introduced a generation of children to the joy of reading.

That achievement should make her an obvious subject for serious biography.

The resistance has nothing to do with literature and everything to do with politics.

Rowling stopped being judged primarily as one of the world’s most consequential living authors and became a political litmus test. For many cultural gatekeepers, her views on sex and gender now outweigh everything she has written, accomplished, donated, or inspired.

Readers do not have to agree with Rowling to recognize what is happening. They need only ask one question: When did we stop being curious?

What struck me during my conversation with Schmidt was how straightforward his motivation was. He was not looking to pick a fight. He noticed an obvious gap.

How could the woman behind Harry Potter, arguably the defining literary phenomenon of the past 30 years, not already have a definitive modern biography?

RELATED: WNBA star Sophie Cunningham comes out against men in women’s sports: ‘I want to protect young girls’

Christian Petersen/Getty Images

Charles Dickens has biographies. William Shakespeare has biographies. J.R.R. Tolkien has biographies. C.S. Lewis has biographies.

Yet the creator of the most successful publishing franchise of our lifetime has become too radioactive for many people even to discuss.

That should disturb anyone who claims to love books.

Understanding Rowling’s life also helps readers understand Harry Potter. Her experiences with poverty, depression, rejection, and single motherhood were not incidental details. They shaped the stories.

They informed Harry’s loneliness, the Dementors’ vivid embodiment of depression, and the books’ recurring lesson that courage usually carries a personal cost.

Biography is not endorsement. It is exploration. Our cultural institutions increasingly refuse to recognize the difference.

The irony is that Harry Potter warned us about this long before social media existed.

Throughout the series, the Ministry of Magic spends almost as much time controlling information as protecting people. The “Daily Prophet” becomes less interested in reporting facts than preserving approved narratives. Dolores Umbridge does not need to burn books. She simply decides which voices deserve to be heard and which should disappear.

Sound familiar?

Millions of readers understood those lessons while turning Rowling’s pages. Some seem to have forgotten them as soon as they closed the books.

My own new book, “The Curse of the Bearded Lady,” appears to have little in common with a biography of J.K. Rowling. One is political satire. The other is literary history.

Both, however, ask the same question: What happens when powerful cultural institutions stop encouraging debate and begin discouraging curiosity?

We are finding out.

I do not expect everyone to agree with Rowling. I do not expect everyone to buy Schmidt’s biography. I certainly do not expect everyone to agree with me.

RELATED: JK Rowling crushes Glamour UK magazine for awarding ‘Women of the Year’ to 9 trans-identifying males

Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing/Getty Images

Agreement was never the point.

Readers should be free to encounter ideas, arguments, and complicated people without first receiving permission from self-appointed cultural referees. Publishing once trusted readers to make those judgments for themselves.

Too many gatekeepers now prefer to make the choices in advance.

History has never been written exclusively about saints. Fortunately, the people who change the world are usually complicated. They achieve remarkable things. They fail publicly. They contradict themselves. They change. That is what makes them worth studying.

J.K. Rowling is one of those figures, whether her critics approve or not.

The final irony is almost too perfect.

Rowling spent years teaching millions of young readers to question authority, resist propaganda, and think for themselves. Harry, Hermione, and Luna never accepted an official narrative merely because someone powerful delivered it.

Perhaps that explains why the books still endure. They encourage independent judgment.

That may be the most dangerous magic left.

Somewhere along the way, “He Who Must Not Be Named” stopped being a fictional villain. For too many people, it became the woman who imagined him.

If You Need Star Wars To Talk About Politics, You’re A Disney Adult

The adoption of 'Star Wars Day' by politicians signals that the pop cultural brain rot within our society has reached critical mass.

HBO’s ‘Harry Potter’ reboot sparks backlash over Snape casting: ‘The West has fallen’



HBO’s new “Harry Potter” series has released an official trailer — and one character in particular has fans in an uproar.

That character is Snape, who is remembered by fans as a deathly pale older white man played by the late Alan Rickman — whose long, jet-black hair and dark, broody eyes only accentuated his spooky skin tone.

“It was being advertised as being wholly faithful to the original source material. You know, it was meant to show audiences that everything the movies were not able to communicate, now we are going to communicate that through the show,” BlazeTV host John Doyle comments.

“And then rumors began to kind of circulate around that one of the most essential characters to the story, Professor Snape, played by the late, great Alan Rickman — fantastic English actor in the original films — he would actually be getting race-swapped and portrayed by British actor named Paapa Essiedu,” he continues.


And after watching the trailer himself, Doyle calls it “disgusting.”

“It’s disgusting just because they used to recycle franchises like 50 years later. Like, they would make a movie called ‘The Smurfs’ 50 years after ‘The Smurfs’ stop being relevant. ... You would see kind of like the resurgence of these old IPs, as they’re called, well after the franchise had expired,” he explains.

“I just think it’s disgusting because of what it says about what we are able to produce creatively as a society where nobody can do anything. And so, what we have to do is basically drag these old IPs out, put a new coat of paint on them, and present them to the public with a modern cast, which is to say a diverse cast,” he continues.

Doyle also notes that this isn’t only happening in movies.

“If you look at public opinion polling on how, like, diverse Americans believe their country is, the average American — this is a fact — the average American believes that the country is 50% black. The reason for that is because every time they turn on the television, all they see are black people,” Doyle explains.

“All they see in movies, commercials are black people. ... And so, as a result, yeah, Professor Snape is a black guy,” he says, pointing out that Snape is described as “pale” with “stringy black hair, long black hair.”

“I don’t have an issue with it in the sense that, you know, the West has fallen because ‘Harry Potter’ is not the way I want it to be. ‘Harry Potter’ is not the way I want it to be because the West has fallen,” he adds.

Want more from John Doyle?

To enjoy more of the truth about America and join the fight to restore a country that has been betrayed by its own leaders, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Why Trump must block Netflix’s Warner Bros. takeover



If Netflix absorbs Warner Bros., the far left will secure a cultural monopoly unmatched in American history. This would place iconic franchises, mass distribution platforms, and elite political influence under a single ideological command structure.

Most coverage treats Netflix as a hybrid of Hollywood and Silicon Valley. That framing misses the decisive fact: The company already operates well inside the Democrat political ecosystem. Susan Rice’s role on Netflix’s board makes that unmistakable.

Susan Rice, Reed Hastings, Barack Obama, and their allies stand within reach of the most powerful political messaging system in American history.

Rice joined Netflix’s board in 2018 after serving in senior positions in the Obama administration. She returned in 2023 after leading Biden’s Domestic Policy Council. Her career spans national security, intelligence, and domestic governance, placing her at the intersection of political power and narrative control.

Rice represents a specific governing class. She served as Obama’s national security adviser and later ran domestic policy for Biden, exercising authority over both foreign and internal priorities. She has shown a willingness to use state power for partisan ends, including her role in the unmasking of Trump transition officials. She has also promoted the most aggressive progressive social policies, including medical interventions for minors under gender ideology.

Rice understands that political power does not rest solely on legislation or elections. It rests on shaping public perception. Institutions that control culture define what ideas appear reasonable, what questions seem illegitimate, and which outcomes feel inevitable.

That instinct was clear in her 2019 New York Times op-ed, “When the President is a Bigot, the Poison Spreads,” in which she accused President Trump of “overt racism” and “almost daily attacks on black and brown people.” The piece functioned less as analysis and more as moral instruction issued from elite authority.

Since returning to Netflix’s board, Rice has intensified her attacks on the Trump administration. She accused Vice President JD Vance of showing “fealty to Vladimir Putin” and derided Trump as a “surrender monkey” for resisting constant military escalation. These are not isolated remarks. They reflect an entrenched worldview that treats deviation from the foreign policy consensus as disqualifying.

RELATED: Can conservatives reclaim pop culture?

Photo by Ernesto S. Ruscio/Getty Images

Rice’s presence alone should concern anyone who values media pluralism. A Netflix acquisition of Warner Bros. would raise the stakes dramatically. Such a merger would consolidate production, distribution, and political alignment inside a single corporate structure.

Warner Bros. controls some of the most influential properties in American entertainment, including DC Comics, "The Lord of the Rings," Harry Potter, and a deep film and television catalog. These assets shape cultural imagination at scale. No serious observer believes they would remain politically neutral under unified ideological control.

Netflix’s existing output already shows how entertainment becomes a delivery system for political messaging. Iconic characters are refashioned to signal progressive virtue. Narratives favor mass migration, abortion, and sexual politics without engaging dissent. Ideology enters through repetition rather than argument.

The most consequential impact would involve foreign policy and the national security state. Entertainment does not debate policy; it conditions instinct. Audiences absorb stories that normalize permanent crisis, global intervention, and moralized obedience to authority long before they encounter those ideas in political form.

Rice is not operating alone, obviously. Netflix founder and chairman Reed Hastings is a major Democrat donor who tried to blacklist Peter Thiel in 2016 for supporting Trump. That same year, Netflix signed Michelle and Barack Obama to a reported $50 million production deal, renewed in 2024 for an undisclosed amount.

RELATED: Trump is right: Netflix’s merger would create a woke media monster

Photo by Vincent Feuray/Hans Lucas/AFP/Getty Images

These relationships form a coherent network. Political power feeds cultural production. Cultural production shapes public opinion. Distribution ensures saturation. The loop closes without voters ever being asked.

My organization, the Oversight Project, will soon release an interim report examining Netflix’s role in social engineering under the guise of entertainment. The report documents how elite political priorities migrate into mass culture through corporate platforms that present ideology as entertainment.

A constitutional republic depends on a citizenry capable of self-government. America’s founders emphasized this repeatedly, and the First Amendment reflects their concern. Self-rule requires access to information and culture that are not filtered through ideological monopolies.

When dominant media platforms operate as unified political actors, that condition erodes. Citizens no longer encounter competing interpretations of reality. They receive moral direction from institutions that treat politics as settled doctrine.

A Netflix-Warner Bros. merger would accelerate this consolidation. It would fuse cultural memory, creative output, and political alignment into a single apparatus. The result would not be persuasion but control through saturation.

Susan Rice, Reed Hastings, Barack Obama, and their allies understand what is at stake. They stand within reach of the most powerful political messaging system in American history. President Trump must not allow it.

What Happens When Transgenderism Is No Longer Cool? Prosecutions, Hopefully

Ideologues foisting the harmful lies of transgenderism onto kids should be laughed -- and prosecuted -- out of polite society.

Woke ‘Wizard of Oz’? We’d rather stay in Kansas



Goodbye, “new and improved” Yellow Brick Road? Not so fast.

Yes, the proposed “Wizard of Oz” remake from wokester Kenya Barris appears to be stalled, possibly for good. The project announcement came all the way back in 2022, when woke still ruled Hollywood.

If Hollywood’s imagination drain continues, in 30 years they’ll make a movie about the movie about the movie ...

But now, Gwen Stefani and Blake Shelton promise a “new” “Wizard of Oz” series that reimagines the saga from a young adult perspective.

The series will use “the Yellow Brick Road as a metaphor for the challenges and choices facing young adults today.” As Keanu Reeves might say, “Whoa!”

Maybe if we click our heels three times, this project will go the way of the Wicked Witch of the West ...

‘Potter’ squatter

Sometimes, even Hollywood types make total sense.

Take Chris Columbus. The “Home Alone” director shot the first two “Harry Potter” films in that insanely successful series. Now, HBO Max is prepping a new “Potter” series that will bring the beloved books to life.

Again.

Didn’t the films do just that in epic fashion? Was anyone dissatisfied with the finished product? It’s all pretty confusing to Columbus (and to anyone who doesn’t understand Hollywood’s lust for intellectual property).

“I looked online, and there are photographs of Nick Frost as Hagrid with the new Harry Potter,” Columbus said. “And he’s wearing the exact same costume that we designed for Hagrid. Part of me was like, ‘What’s the point?’ I thought everything [on the HBO show], the costumes and everything, was going to be different. It’s more of the same.”

He’s right. And it doesn’t matter. The streamer wouldn’t risk all that cash — a reported $100 million per episode — if it didn’t have faith it’ll draw a crowd.

Heck, they might as well start a third Harry Potter adaptation as soon as this one wraps ...

Rocky’s road

Sick of reboots, sequels, and prequels? How about a movie about the making of a movie? It sounds pretty darn meta, but this one actually might work.

Why?

The film is “I Play Rocky,” and it recalls Sylvester Stallone’s battle to both write and star in the movie that would change his career. A young Stallone was a virtual nobody in Hollywood when he wrote a script about a down-on-his-luck boxer who got a chance at being the champ.

The studio loved the script but clamored for a “star” to play the main character. Stallone dug in his heels, insisting he was the right person to play Rocky Balboa. “Yo!”

It’s as inspiring as the actual film, and director Peter Farrelly previously gave us the Oscar-winning “Green Book.”

If Hollywood’s imagination drain continues, in 30 years they’ll make a movie about the movie about the movie ...

‘Eternals’ flame out

Ask any indie filmmaker what they crave more than anything else, and the answer is clear.

Money. As in, “Can I have some more, please?”

Indie filmmakers make do with less, cutting corners wherever possible and finding new ways to stretch their limited budgets.

So when indie auteur Chloe Zhao got the keys to a Marvel project, she probably pinched herself. Endless Mouse House cash!

It turns out that wasn’t necessarily a good thing. Zhao’s “Eternals” flopped, at least by superhero standards, and she retreated to more familiar terrain with the upcoming indie drama “Hamnet.” That film is a fictional look at the death of William Shakespeare’s son and how it inspired the creation of “Hamlet.”

Too much cash wasn’t the elixir Zhao expected.

“‘Eternals’ had, like, an unlimited amount of money and resources. And here we have one street corner that we can afford, to [stand in for] Stratford. ... ‘Eternals’ didn’t have a lot of limitations, and that is actually quite dangerous. Because we only have that street corner [in ‘Hamnet’], suddenly everything has meaning.”

Here’s betting she’ll miss that MCU-size personal trailer ...

No sisterhood for Sweeney

“It girl” actress Sydney Sweeney enraged the left by flaunting her good “genes” in an American Eagle ad. The commercial roiled the usual suspects, who dubbed her a Nazi for trying to peddle jeans with her iconic curves.

Conservatives rallied to her side, understanding that sex sells and Sweeney did nothing wrong. One group that refused to have the starlet’s back?

Feminists.

RELATED: Sydney Sweeney is rebuilding Americana — one Bronco at a time

Photo by MEGA / Contributor via Getty Images

Why didn’t they support her against the woke mob? Doesn’t she have the “agency” to make her own creative choices?

Their silence got even louder when a certain comedian came to her defense. Matt Rife, known for his rough-and-tumble crowd work, isn’t a feminist by any definition. Glamour magazine slammed his comedy brand as misogynist.

Yet it was Rife who defended Sweeney on a related subject. The actress recently teamed with Dr. Squatch for a bathwater soap product dubbed “Bathwater Bliss.”

“I keep seeing people mad at Sydney Sweeney for noooothing. She’s learning that the internet is full of absolute garbage losers who will twist anything you say into a c**ty misinterpretation. People are awful.”

People can be awful. And feminists can be hypocrites all day long.

Activists Demand A Biological Man Play Princess Zelda, Proving ‘Representation’ Is Just Power Politics

Consistency isn’t the point. Like most things in the leftist cultural project, the selective outrage is about narrative and control.

San Francisco Store’s Ban On J.K. Rowling Shows The Left’s ‘Book Ban’ Complaints Are Pure Manipulation

The magic found in the pages of Rowling’s books can no longer be found at this store, but the liberal propaganda is hard to miss.