>>10006800 (pb)

Saw an anon lb repost the "Disney is a distraction" Q post and figured I'd take a shot at writing this up…

I don't see ANYTHING wrong with the Pinocchio book images from Q4588. And I'm not sure Q disagrees, and that may be part of the point. If I am right, then part of the meaning of "Disney is a distraction" is that "Disney" has historically endeavored to present a saccharine vision of childhood, but that this is INHERENTLY a problem, since it then leaves children (and their parents) incapable of responding to the real evil that exists in the world (including, and especially in this case, evil that threatens children). (This post is really for autists and not for more "normie" patriots… maybe some who get my drift can find a way to pitch this better to them…)

Let's break this into three stages, going back in time. First, look at Disney productions of recent decades. You DON'T need Q to tell you that there are slipping pervy stuff into animation. How many "hidden bulging dicks" do you need to see before you realize it isn't a coincidence? But you don't even need to look at the animation: if you simply look at the "messaging" of more recent Disney films, it is obvious that they are pushing some nefarious agendas (at least covertly). WE DON'T NEED Q TO TELL US THIS.

BUT…. there is a contrast between these more recent productions and stuff that was produced earlier. Look at Disney material from the 50s to the 80s, say. I'm thinking of films, TV, books, comics, all of it. If you were a child in the 80s or earlier, you likely recall this, and if you are younger, you still likely recall some of this. I have yet to see anyone find "hidden dicks" in this older stuff, but more significantly, the MESSAGING was much more positive. This is OBVIOUS if you compare the older stuff with the more recent stuff. Men are not portrayed as doofuses, but rather as hesitantly, but possibly, courageous, to take one example. Again, you DON'T need Q to tell you this: compare and think for yourself. That's kind of what the Q post is saying anyway, right?

But now go back pre-Disney, to some of the European folk tales from which much of the material is derived. If you actually read Carlo Collodi's Pinocchio, or Grimm's fairy tales, or Hans Christian Andersen, or even Lewis Carroll (spare me the pearl clutching), the material is almost always much DARKER than what you find in Disney. I'll take Lewis Carroll as an example to spite the morans who claim he is a "pedo"… there is ZERO evidence he had a "sexual" interest in young girls. An unusual guy to be sure, but Alice in Wonderland is on some level a portrayal of a girl thinking for herself while becoming immersed in absurd surroundings… which are meant to suggest the "educated" society of the day. But that is not really "dark" enough, so look at some of the Grimm tales… OF COURSE there are overt references to CHILDREN BEING EATEN.

Is that bad? NO! EATING children is bad, yes, very much so. Stories, told to children, in which children are in danger of being EATEN, are NOT BAD AT ALL… since EVIL exists, and children need to learn that. Children GET that getting EATEN would be HORRIBLE. Would it be better to have stories about sex fiends who want to orally and anally rape children? NO! That would be grotesque, even if more true. Children don't need to "know" about perversions of sexuality until they learn to grow into a positive vision of manhood or womanhood. But they DO need to know about the possible and actual existence of DARK EVIL threatening them, since it matters to them as children and as future men and women.

Now I'm getting to the main point…. "Disney is a distraction"…. the main "rap" against Disney all the way back is that to a considerable extent older stories get "sanitized". Evil is made to seem comical, or an aberration, rather than an inherent possibility of the human condition. Children are portrayed as inherently innocent, rather than as future men and women who need to LEARN how to act, and need to learn to vigorously pursue truth and goodness and beauty as opposed to evil.

The "problem" with the Disney images Q linked to, which I am taking as from around the 70s's… could be wrong but that's what the imagery and language suggest… is NOT that DARK EVIL is being suggested… but that it is NOT being made overt enough. Actually, I myself find the insinuation clear enough in the given pages, but on the whole "Disney" was "sanitizing" evil throughougt the mid-twentieth century, even if positive virtues were not yet being undermined. I think that is the REAL meaning of "Disney is a distraction" (but muh double meanings…)

In short, "Disney" has distracted many from the REAL existence of EVIL… and this is far more dangerous than the fact that some animators slip pervy images in.