The irony of Disney opposing Georgia’s religious liberty bill

is that the Walt Disney Company probably does more to promote nostalgia for traditionally feminine and masculine archetypes (not to mention for medieval, white, European monarchy) than American Christians.  You can take that as a statement about Disney’s hypocritical double game or about the ineffectuality of today’s Christians, but it’s quite arguable.

Christians are to be persecuted because they can’t practice plausible deniability like Disney and the purchasers of its products.  (The little girls who are its ultimate consumers, on the other hand, are always threatening to give the game away.)  I sometimes get the sense that Disney executives don’t really like their product and try to be extra PC to compensate.  I foresee fairy tales being more and more regarded the way we used to regard pornography; nowadays, it’s just a different aspect of human sexuality that we repress.

One wonders what the world of these anti-discrimination laws coupled with the the gay-rights media lynch mob will be like.  Potentially anyone who expresses moral disapproval of homosexuality could be turned into an unemployable social pariah, a fate most people find worse than death.  If around half of the country remains firm against the sodomy agenda, it will be completely impractical to do that to all of them, but I expect the vast majority to cave.  Still, ruining even one percent of the population would still be quite an exertion, white a burden on the rest.  More likely, it will work like Steve Sailer’s metaphorical “eye of Soros”, where ruin will randomly be visited on some people who express forbidden thoughts but not others.  I’m reminded of the episode of Star Trek:  the Next Generation with a planet where the punishment for every crime, no matter how trivial, is death, but the police only monitor one spot per day, and no one knows where that spot is.

I sometimes hear calls from Christians to boycott companies that are calling for our persecution.  By all means, if you want to avoid buying products from Disney or the NFL or whoever because you think it’s cooperation in evil or just they’ve made you so mad you wouldn’t enjoy their products anyway, go ahead and do it.  But I’m always against organized, announced boycotts from our side for the simple reason that they will certainly fail to hurt their target, and it’s bad for all sorts of reasons to demonstrate your weakness to the enemy.

13 Responses

  1. […] The irony of Disney opposing Georgia’s religious liberty bill […]

  2. […] Source: The irony of Disney opposing Georgia’s religious liberty bill […]

  3. Also, boycotts, protests, rebellions, etc. are the tools of the enemy. Using the ring of power will only corrupt us in the end and any victories it helps us win will all be for naught.

  4. Rebellions sure, but what’s objectionable about boycotts and protests? Catholics in the US used boycotts and protests to decent effect in opposing contraception legalization in the 10s and 20s, for instance.

  5. Well, you also have to consider that gay guys in real life actually want to _be_ princesses, so this helps give Disney some cover too.

    This is similar to the fashion industry which is actually all about selling women a lot of hyper feminine stuff.

    In a weird way, gays only end up affirming a sex binary.

    You can never actually abolish the sex binary, only pervert it.

  6. It’s weird how hyperpoliticized scholarship of fairy and folk tales has become. Someone like Jack Zipes is actually a pretty good scholar and translator of these tales, but he is incensed at the unPC nature of these tales. You also get all kinds of feminist retellings, like those of Margaret Atwood, Angela Carter, Carol Ann Duffy. It’s like these people are both attracted and repulsed by this stuff at the same time.

  7. I doubt if anti-discrimination laws will be much resorted to.

    One recalls Lord Acton’s prescient words: “In September 1789, the liberty of the press was only four months old, and the reign of opinion was beginning on the Continent. They fancied that it was an invincible force, and a complete security for human rights. It was invaluable if it secured right without weakening power, like the other contrivances of Liberalism. They thought that when men were safe from the force above them, they required no saving from the influence around them. Opinion finds its own level, and a man yields easily and not unkindly to what surrounds him daily. Pressure from equals is not to be confounded with persecution by superiors. It is right that the majority, by degrees, should absorb the minority.”

  8. The success or failure of boycotts illustrates Talleyrand’s dictum that that people are like numerals – their importance depends on their position.

    In the 1960s, a number of anti-apartheid groups, notably students, tried to organise a boycott of South African oranges. Their impact was negligible. However, the cause was taken up by the Communist Party. This had only a couple of thousand members, but included the General Secretaries of the National Union of Railwaymen and of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers & Firemen, along with a minority (but an active minority) of branch secretaries.

    In the event, they succeeded, not only in passing resolutions “blacking” (i.e refusing to handle) Outspan oranges, but in persuading the Dock Workers and the Transport & General Workers unions to do the same. The offending oranges disappeared from the shops overnight.

  9. Disney has not been appreciably conservative since “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” and the following renaissance age of animation.

    For example:
    Who Framed Roger Rabbit included Jessica Rabbit impersonating Sharon Stone’s infamous Basic Instinct scene where she exposed her uncovered vulva to the audience.

    Mulan is obvious feminism/ gender relativism propoganda

    Aladdin portrayed the Islamic patriarchy as evil and keeping Jasmin oppressed.

    The Little Mermaid also had a similar “patriarchy is evil message”, with our heroine rebelling against her father.

    Tarzan was basically the standard “civilized white men are evil” tripe.

  10. Also, might add, the Hunchback of Notre Dame probably takes the cake in promoting liberal propaganda.

    Here, a Catholic cleric is viewed as a bad guy, whose sexual repression (and signature high sex drives conservative men are known for) drives him further to the depths of villainy. It was even feminist enough to have our resident Gypsy girl, friendzone Quasimodo for a Chad (Phoebus), and to view that outcome in a positive light.

    Claude Frollo represents everything liberals hate about conservative men.

    Also, here is Hamza Yusuf on Disney:

  11. Well, to be fair, that’s what the book is about too.

  12. The book made Frollo far more sympathetic tho. He genuinely cared about Quasimodo (even when other made fun of him) and only turned to villainy when Esmerelda rejected his advances.

    Disney’s Frollo is just a one dimensional villain

  13. Disney’s Frollo is not a cleric, only a judge. The Archdeacon character was created to show Christian charity to the infant Quasimodo and persuade Frollo to raise Quasimodo out of fear for the fate of Frollo’s soul.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: