Chattel slavery involves the use of slaves as investment vehicles. This is distinct from the more common form of personal slavery as it encourages treating slaves as commodities rather than people. When the U.S. was founded the expectation - by both slave-holders and non-slave-holders alike - was that the issue of slavery would largely just resolve itself. However, the use of slaves as security for loans and the elevated value of slaves due to the abolition of the slave trade made slavery itself so critical to the economy of the South that it would require a massive effort.
The house-elves in Harry Potter were not chattel slaves. Arguably they weren’t slaves at all and using that term is inappropriate because it was part of the house-elves intrinsic nature rather than a condition imposed on them. Dobbie was an aberration and it was fairly clear that most house-elves would have strongly resisted ‘freedom’ even if the wizards decided to impose it on them.
You might consider that the reason Hermione was an anti-SJW stereotype is the same reason people might mock someone who insisted we free dogs. It’s fairly clear that modern dogs don’t want to ‘be free’ and are considered part of the household rather than slaves we abuse - and someone who tried to draw the kind of analogy you and Hermione are trying to draw would be mocked.
In terms of goblins being ‘anti-semitic’, this isn’t an argument you should be taking up with J.K. Rowling. Her goblins are pretty much a straight port - like her trolls, giants, dragons, unicorns, etc. - from already existing mythology. Indeed, you might consider that perhaps their most defining trait - their stature - is a not an anti-semitic stereotype. Likewise, the ‘hook-nosed’ stereotype is purely a Nazi invention and thus largely unrelated to the goblin myths that J.K. Rowling was borrowing. What are we left with? That “jews are bankers” is a stereotype? But if that’s all you’ve got to hang your anti-Semitism claims on, you’re effectively claiming that the mere existence of the profession of banking in Harry Potter is ‘anti-semitic’.
Rita Skeeter is described as having a ‘heavy’ jaw and ‘large, mannish’ hands. You’re really stretching to read any sort of ‘anti-trans’ rhetoric out of this unless you seriously believe that most women would like this description applied to them. Rowling wanted to describe a female character as visually unappealing and you seem to consider any such description as violating some sort of ethical code or another.
The same is true with ‘fatphobia’. There’s a big difference between not hiring an accountant because she’s put on a bit of weight and describing a villainous character as physically unattractive. And ‘fat’ is physically unattractive by our modern standards.
In terms of the scrutiny received by women/girls, you might consider that this accurately reflects the reality in which we live. Nor is it limited to women/girls. The Dursleys - of both genders - are also unattractive, as are villains such as Quirrell. Lockheart is both male and the primary example of vanity in the series. It seems like you’re cherry-picking again - trying to invent a bias by examining female characters but not male.
In terms of emphasizing motherhood, bear in mind that this is the path most women follow so it’s hardly unrealistic to portray it in an aspirational fashion. But you’ve also got women who never took that route like McGonagall. The reason it’s called ‘heteronormative’ is because it’s what most people end up doing. The fact that most women end up with children and/or married in Harry Potter is no different than how women in the real world live their lives.
Indeed, you might stop to consider that in almost any work primarily written about children you’re going to have the involvement of their parents. Those parents are far more likely to be ‘heteronormative’ than not. At best you might argue that Rowling overstates the prevalence of parental death/disability vs. parental divorce. But that’s more of a key plot element than some sort of argument in favoring of killing parents.
You can certainly debate about these sorts of elements in the book but it’s a tough sell to claim these elements as a nefarious insert by the author.
There is nothing in U.S. history remotely on the scale of the Great Leap Forward.
Moreover, even today, almost anyone in China with the resources to do so hedges their bets on Chinese government. That’s why there are no significant restrictions on Americans transferring their assets into Chinese banks but there are significant restrictions on Chinese transferring their assets into American ones.
The question people like Chomsky fail to ask is “what’s the alternative?”. If you honestly ask this question, there are no real world examples of a better option than American hegemony. Indeed, the very values you hold dear that are used to criticize the means by which the Anglo-American dominance of the world has been maintained could never have existed without that dominance.
By and large, the world is content with American hegemony not because it is perfect but because it is better than the alternatives.