The recent discovery by those sleuths at Fox News that the new Muppet movie was in fact little more than a disgusting anticapitalistic liberal screed got me thinking (for which I deeply apologize). This is certainly not the first time that Hollywood has been accused of trying to warp the minds of our young with filthy liberal bilge that will make them hate their local oligarch. But, I started to wonder, how deep does this go, and how far back? (I obviously need a better hobby, but that's another story). What follows can hardly be regarded as complete or authoritative, but I believe it demonstrates the insidious power those awful liberal Hollywood types have wielded over our impressionable youngsters over the years, part of a leftist plot to poison our kids against everything that's good and American - things like greed, exploitation of anyone you can use, amorality and a haughty disdain for those less fortunate than you. Because, after all, being less fortunate is a sign of inferiority, right?
Fox has already explicated the dangerous hidden messgaes contained in the new Muppet movie, so we should begin our examination elsewhere. A good starting point is Mary Poppins. This film especially demonstrates how devious the Left's Fifth Columnists are, since it was supervised personally by Walt Disney, a man who made a very public show of waving the flag and attacking Communists and unions (I know, a redundancy, but bear with me) throughout his life. Yet this film alone (as well as others we'll look at later) clearly show Walt's insidious anti-American agenda.
Poppins' most egregious slander is against all the good finance industry professionals and job creators at the Dawes, Dawes, Museley, Grubb Fidelity Fiduciary Bank (it's OK to hum that if you like, to yourself anyway). These are, by the film's own admission ,captains of industry and pillars of the financial community. Yet they are depicted as bug eyed greedy old bloodsuckers who "take" young Michael Banks' tuppence in an allegedly improper manner. And what does this young child, indoctrinated with the filth of the Occupy movement, do? HE DEMANDS IT BACK!! He clearly wants something for nothing, just like leftists always do, and his not getting it is the merest childish tantrum, just as is the Occupy movement. This parallel is further emphasized when Michael and his equally dissolute (and apparently chinless) sister become involved with a filty group of "working people" - chimney sweeps, in fact. (The 99%, right? Yuck yuck). But do they work or even try to earn an honest living? No, they dance frivolously on rooftops and vandalize the good Mr. Banks' home. Like the Occupiers, they are filthy, unwashed, and need to get real jobs - flipping burgers would be a good start, I think.
Poppins herself is a classis Leftist interloper, flying in (!) as an outside sgitator to disrrupt the family values she encounters. (The flying, moreover, is as clear a drug reference as I can imagone, to say nothing of what she can do with that bag). Her best friend, Bert, is again a lowlife Occupy type with no fixed employment, who needs a bath (and coaching on how to speak with a Cockney accent) badly. You can almost see the drum circle as Bert and she cavort in mindless children's games (with dancing penguins, no less) a clear symbol of conspiracy with oother lefist cells, solidarity across species and all that.
This outrageous bit of socialist agitprop ends with the erstwhile pillars of capitalist society joining the Occupy types in, of all things, flying kites - a clear dig at the global warming issue, since a real capitalist wouldn't send kites up into the air, but tons and tons of carbon. it's the Anerican way. This blatant plea for collective solidarity is the final insult of the film, the notion that job creators ought to band together with the laxy unemployed (kite fliers) in activity that does nothing to increase quaterly profits or evict an Iraq war veteran. Mary's ominous threat to come back someday, maybe, indicates the intergenerational reach of this hideous conspiracy.
Disney's leftist propaganda sins are hardly confined to this movie, however. The quickest glance at Pinocchio reveals its similar anticapitalistic bias. Its narrator/hero, Jiminy Cricket, is an immediate example. He is again a classic Occupy type - dressed rattily, in need of a bath and a good dead end job chirping out the temperature in a corner of some fast food restaurant - until some daring entrepreneur nails him with Raid. His main song (did I mention that singing is prima facie evidence of being a bleeding hearted leftie? Well, it is) could well be the manifesto for the get-everything-for-free Occupiers: "When you wish upon a star, your dreams come true." What soft headed nonsense. Your dreams don't come true from wishing on stars, they come true from strip mining the bastards. Wish my foot - let's move some white-hot plasma without onerous safety regulations, then we'll get someplace. Just use that No. 10 can over there . . . .
Next, let's look at the disgusting manner in which the film displays Stromboli. The man is clearly a hero, a small businessman and an entrepreneur. He's trying to make a profit, and to create jobs (such as enslaved wooden boy child performers). Of course he "kidnaps" Pinocchio to use him to make money - that's in his self interest, and both Ayn Rand and Hayek would applaud such initiative. Besides, Pinocchio is not a person (or corporation), but a little wooden boy, and thus lacks rights. treating him as a person, and not as a natural respurce to be exploited, is classic Leftist drivel. The illm's implication that he in fact deserves "personhood" represents a clear screed for animal rights, not to mention marrying your iguana. Rule of thumb: corporations = people; little wooden boys, not so much.
Moving on, we find that Bambi is a 90 minute propaganda film for not only radical environmentalism, but an attack on Second Amendment rights. The environmental agenda is clear throughout, as is the facile crypto-Communist reflexive blaming of enterprising capitalists for everything that goes wrong. No one could have anticipated that the untended cooking fire would spiral out of control into a major conflagration, and if Government hadn't prohibited propane stoves (a product made possible by the persecuted oil industry), the fire never would have been made in the first place. Thus, the fire is the Government's fault.
But back to the Second Amendment. We all know that guns don't kill people (or saintly mother deer), people do. Yet we never see or hear the people who wield the guns in this film. The guns are made to be the enemy. This blatant insult to our most cherished Constitutional right (it is that one, right?) is alone an outrage. Yet it represents only part of the insult to Amnerican values here. Hunting, after all, is a noble libertarian enterprise, in which a single man - or a big group of men - of John Galt types, pit their wits against the ugly forces of Nature (which is left wing Gaea stuff anyway), using only their intelligence, massive amounts of lukewarm beer, night vision goggles, high powered scopes, expensive self-heated camoflage apparel, and hollow point ammunition to assist them in their Herculean task. And what is that task? Why, indulgent pleasure in taking ionnocent life, of course. What could be more American?
That, and lots of blood.
I could go on through the rest of the Disney catalog, but the point should already be clear (plus I'm out of DVDs). Disney has for decades been deviously poisoning the minds of our children with Leftist dogma and Sharia law principles (I had to throw that in at some point. It's there someplace, believe me, I just know it is) in a clear effort to weaken our country. It is and has been the sharp point on Hollywood's evil spear into the heart of the American eagle (or whatever that bird in The Rescuers was). We must stand up to this indictrination of our children, lest we find ourselves marching in forced unison, chimney sweep brooms in hand, singing that most hated Maoist propagande song, "It's a Small World After All" to our Marxist overlords.