jump to navigation

Disney Is Evil December 6, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
trackback

As if you needed me to tell you that, but a recent post I found highlights the degree to which formerly family-oriented Disney now leads the cultural charge against the family and all moral decency.  I add some additional anecdotes based on recent experience below the quote, to which I add a few comments:

…..Consider television’s portrayal of children and family relationships. While the twentieth century offered up families like Leave it to Beaver (where kids learned valuable moral lessons from their parents) as well as the Brady Bunch, the Partridges, and the Huxtables (all of which emphasized respect for each other and the compromises necessary to make a family work), today the family is too often a celebration of ridicule and dysfunction.

Today’s TV families have gone from being respectful and supportive to being snarky, hostile, and rude. Perhaps it was the success of the crass Married… with Children that marked the beginning of this trend, but it’s impossible to turn on the television now and see children that are truly role-models—even from supposedly family-friendly companies like Disney. [This trend was not accidental.  It was deliberate, part of the Left’s war on decency but especially Catholic morals going back several centuries. TV was a great prize for them in that respect, bringing incredibly powerful, influential images into people’s homes for hours at a time, images and stories which could be, and have been, used to radically change people’s beliefs and detach them from God-given truth.]

In fact, according to the latest research from the Parent Television Council, Disney-owned ABC and Fox are the two worst offenders for vulgarity with TV shows that regularly feature children using profanity and sexual dialogue. The worst of all shows is the ABC “family” sitcom The Real O’Neals, which “contains more sexual dialog involving teen and child characters than any other primetime program on broadcast TV.” [Conceived by the deplorable (heh) Dan Savage, obviously seeking to normalize perversion in others to make his stand out a bit less while also carrying out his diabolical jihad against the Church he left as a young man.  I have found all Disney-related channels, but especially anything carrying the ABC label, to be the most morally offensive of any broadcast (airborne) network around.  Even their ads for their own programs are absolutely atrocious, featuring same-sex making out/groping involving teens, among other things.  And these appeared on so-called “ABC Family,” seen while stuck in a hotel room one night while traveling. You can’t even watch a college football game without having to send the kids out of the room, for fear of the network ads]

Even cartoons aren’t free of obscenities and sexual situations—and we’re not talking about Adult Swim on Cartoon Network. Yes, innuendo has always been popular in children’s programming (watch the original Batman TV series as an adult and you will see what I mean) but the situations and comments broadcast today aren’t subtle—they’re explicit.

Another example.  We don’t watch much TV, save for the aforementioned college football which is now essentially over (since I don’t have ESPN and that’s where virtually all the bowls are).  But I do have a computer, I have Amazon Prime, and they have a ton of “free” content.  I have availed myself of that just a little until recently, when I got sucked into watching a show from about a decade ago on HBO that was called “The Wire.”

This program demonstrates how pernicious and how concerted the effort to redefine morals has been.  The program is in many ways excellent, though riddled with violence and gratuitous sexuality including full on nude scenes.  The writing, storylines, locations, and acting are all very good.  The character development is extremely strong.  That’s what sucks you in.

But I’ve turned my back on it, as I’m not entirely certain the program wasn’t created simply, and primarily, as a vehicle to advance the sexular pagan agenda, and specifically, that which was leftist holy grail at the time it was created (2002), pseudo-sodo-marriage.  Now, seeing as it involves the drug trade in the Baltimore projects, and all the associated police and civil activity, it seems passing strange to me that two very prime characters in the program, one cop and one hood, would be cast as being “homosexual.”  The street hood character is especially egregious, as they really go over the top trying to normalize his perversion.  Of course they chose an extremely charismatic actor for the role, and gave him a choice role as a “Robin Hood” of the ghetto, stealing from drug dealers and handing out the proceeds to needy families.  Then there is the cop, a female, who happens to be the only non-morally compromised cop on the show.

Furthermore, all the married people commit adultery, they drink to excess, they steal, they do all kinds of nefarious things, but not the two gay characters. In all their actions in and out of their personal relationships, they are routinely set up as the most savvy, the most honest, the most committed, and the most moral of all the program’s characters.

I find it difficult to imagine any of this was an accident.  This was a deliberate bit of socio-political agitprop, part of that massive wave of charismatic homosexual characters that came bursting on the scene as the 90s gave way to the 00s and which was tied in, quite carefully and deliberately, with the overarching “gay agenda.”  Shows like this, with top-notch writing and talent, helped convinced millions of people that sodomy is perfectly natural and normal (interestingly, in the many prison scenes, there has never been a rape committed, even though such rape is epidemic), and that it would of course, as a matter of natural reason, to deny such caring, virtuous people of their “rights” to enjoy “happiness” as they can find it.

Of course, this is a complete inversion of the truth, and entirely extraneous to the program’s storyline. There was absolutely no need in the program’s story arc for these characters to be aficionados of these sins. This was simply an egregious bit of agitprop foisted on unwary souls seeking a little bit of entertainment (and also, surely, serving in that most vital of roles for the leftist, virtue signaling to all the other little leftists out there that the shows creators, writers, directors, producers, etc., are members of the good and holy tribe of leftists). It’s also the number one reason why I unplugged from TV in the first place, and helps remind me why I find my enthusiasm for college football always waning by the latter parts of the season, beat down as I am by the inescapable by-product of exposing myself to this corrupted medium.

Father Wolfe was always right.  Get a shotgun, and blow several holes through your TV screen. It’s just not worth it.

As for Disney, we bought all their old movies years ago, but we almost never watch them anymore.  Some of my older girls went through Disney princess stage when they were younger, as my wife and I hadn’t quite figured things out by that time, but our younger kids (and my wife and I) have largely been spared that.  The kids have very little interest in watching anything Disney anymore, not that my wife and I would be opposed, in principle to their viewing some of their classic animated movies from the 40s and 50s.

Advertisements

Comments

1. Tim - December 7, 2016

Even classics like Bambi were quietly adding to the agenda way back. Much more subtle than today, obviously. Just like V2…..it was the “size the day” moment with at least 200 years of quiet groundwork. I always thought Fantasia was their best…..probably infiltrated as well….haven’t watched in years.

Be careful boutique glorifying the 40’s and 50’s…….Asked once if we should be working to get back to 50’school Catholicism Bishop Williamson replied absolute not!……that’s the Catholicism that gave us the V2 disaster…..we need to go much farther back.

2. Baseballmom - December 7, 2016

I’ve shared some of the Disney issues with my kids (who have little kids) but have not had much success. They just don’t see the harm in it.
As for the shows of the 50’s and early 60’s, I still enjoy them when I have a spare time.

3. c matt - December 7, 2016

If there is a show you like, DVR it and then fast forward through commercials. I haven’t watched a commercial in a long time. Another reason to like soccer – no commercials except at half-time.

4. skeinster - December 7, 2016

What we need is a monitor of character apportionment for each network, based on the U.S. census. They submit the script and then get their okays from the overseers:

“I’m sorry- you have exceeded your quota for lesbian characters this month. And you need to up your number of progressive villains another thirty per cent to be in compliance with political affiliation stats. In addition, just a reminder that you have only 3 more gunshot victims for the quarter, none of whom may be shot by a LEO, even if it’s a cop show.

As per usual, unlimited zombie casualties are allowed.”

5. David - December 7, 2016

I sometimes watch old shows from the 1970s, and while the titles are familiar, the content is new to me.

One show I watched on the Aspire Network (recorded them) was Room 222. It’s about an inner city high school circa 1969 to 1973. It was nice to see public school kids who demonstrated respect for authority. It was also a show about school where kids were shown studying and doing homework. A few teachers and counselors were often shown as “big brother, big sister” models to the students, and many of the actors and actresses seemed believe able – the girls had a “girl next door ” look.

6. Amillennial - December 7, 2016

No disagreement at all from me. We can’t even watch certain shows on The Food Network of all channels owing to the fact that even these cooking shows manage to push the ‘gaygenda’ by showcasing the culinary skills of certain folks who have fallen into this particular and deplorable ‘lifestyle’. Good grief.

7. David - December 7, 2016

Over Thanksgiving, I was watching football with my family. Although I am am straight man with a pulse, I could not believe that at least three commercials per hour were for blue pills. CBS of course showed several advertisements for the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show. Our culture has forgotten the virtue of chastity, and the advertising for blue pills are showing adult men and women 40+, presumably unmarried, taking vacations together. Even in 1980, that behavior would have been looked down upon.

8. tg - December 7, 2016

I only watch some old shows on MeTV and Cozi TV. I need a laugh at the end of the day and some shows like the A Team make me laugh. I don’t watch any shows on network TV. The last one was NCIS and then they had to introduce a sodomy agenda and that’s it for me.

Tantumblogo - December 7, 2016

I like some of the old westerns on MeTV. The Rifleman gives a very positive image of fathers, though it is too violent. Still, Lucas McCain is a bad mofo with that modified Winchester.

Amillennial - December 7, 2016

I can relate. Even the latest batch of super hero shows are not immune to the LGBT influence. It is sad really in that I cannot in good conscience even watch this ‘lighter fare’ with my children. Typically, we can get through half a season or more before such content makes it way into a program such as these, however, even Supergirl and Legends of Tomorrow don’t even get past the pilot before introducing content of this nature in an attempt to normalize the behavior. Ugh. I grow ever more sick of this culture that is so dead set against the faithful.

Brian Springer - December 7, 2016

I don’t find that surprising, superhero comic books have been vehicles for the progressive agenda for a long time.

Amillennial - December 7, 2016

Especially in this later day and time. When I was a juvenile in the 80s it seemed that the X-Men and others like it were more about a parallel for coming of age for adolescents. Now it is more about coming out, a parallel for embracing one’s sexuality (superpower), and so on. Again, ugh…

9. red6020 - December 7, 2016

“Then there is the cop, a female, who happens to be the only non-morally compromised cop on the show.

Furthermore, all the married people commit adultery, they drink to excess, they steal, they do all kinds of nefarious things, but not the two gay characters. In all their actions in and out of their personal relationships, they are routinely set up as the most savvy, the most honest, the most committed, and the most moral of all the program’s characters.

I find it difficult to imagine any of this was an accident. ”

On shows like Law & Order, it’s darn obvious what they’re trying to do. A lot of the producers and writers have come out and said stuff like this. I recently bought Ben Shapiro’s Primetime Propaganda and I plan to sit down and read it sometime.

On too many shows the male character is always the bad one. The female one is always the good one. Or the super-awesome, super-smart, strong, independent one. Ditto for whites vs. minorities or Christians vs. other religions. Even Christian films (like ones from the Kendrick Brothers) do this a lot.

The above basically describes Star Wars: The Force Awakens for you, by the way.

I think it’s because that’s how liberals really see the world. Plus if you want to create a “nuanced” show that means making everyone morally compromised. But if you have a true “good guy”, you aren’t going to choose the white, Christian man because that would seem “patriarchal”. Or “racist” or “bigoted” or whatever. And it’s a “good thing” to increase positive portrayals of women (racial minorities, non-Christians, etc.). Who doesn’t like to be comforted by confirming their own beliefs?

I’ve read reviews of the new Star Wars criticizing Rey (who’s basically a female Luke) as being a “Mary Sue” who can do anything better than any other character unrealistically. Well, when you understand the above and you got some liberal writers and directors like J.J. Abrams and Disney trying to create “gurrrl power” icon… no duh it ends up that way.

Brian Springer - December 7, 2016

Yeah, its a common trope in television these days. Though I don’t necessarily agree with that assessment on Rey. As you said, she’s basically a female Luke Skywalker, so I don’t see her portrayal as being a blatant example of the “gurrrl power” trend going on.

Tantumblogo - December 7, 2016

We’ll have to wait and see. With another “powerful female” lead in the upcoming picture, it’s starting to look like deliberate agitprop.

Amillennial - December 7, 2016

Complete with an oppressive male, a ‘dark father’, as it were.

Tim - December 8, 2016

The true hero of Star Wars 7 is Han Solo. Finn and Poe were heroic as well and are men. There was even a “walking carpet” hero. This female hero paranoia is silly. Rey did not particularly impress me is the movie and Princess Leah’s role was pathetic. Nothing to see here folks, move along. Heck, there’s even theories that Rey is the granddaughter of Palpatine and may show her dark side……did you see the evil in her face when Kylo was down and she circled him in their duel? Anyway, Finn is the son of Lando!

red6020 - December 10, 2016
red6020 - December 10, 2016

@Brian Springer, I mostly agree with the sentiment here:

http://www.returnofkings.com/75991/why-star-wars-the-force-awakens-is-a-social-justice-propaganda-film

Heck, she does what took Luke years, immediately with no training!

That link also contains a helpful quote from JJ Abrams how he choose actors for their race and gender not skill.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: