Fornits
General Interest => Tacitus' Realm => Topic started by: Froderik on September 14, 2010, 01:48:28 PM
-
THE SKILL OF LYING, THE ART OF DECEIT
The Illuminati Disney Bloodline
http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/32979 (http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/32979)
-
Despite Disney's undeniable talent, I found this article particularly disturbing; I don't know how much of this article is true and how much of it can be considered a 'stretch', but it was enough to creep me out a little.
-
I'd always heard (don't ask me where, I've no idea) he was a huge anti-semite.
-
I'd always heard (don't ask me where, I've no idea) he was a huge anti-semite.
So was Henry Ford (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew)
-
So wasn't Joseph Kennedy, (Ambassador to England) just before WW11. Conspired with the Germans.
http://www.beyondweird.com/ufos/One_Who ... rt_30.html (http://www.beyondweird.com/ufos/One_Who_Knows_Fire_From_The_Sky_Part_30.html)
Aug 30, 2009 ... One thing you can say about Joe Kennedy and Prescott Bush, ... 1933 and has made $500000 a year helping Germans make Ersatz gas for war purposes;
-
There have long been concerns among some that Disney promotes the occult and child sex. There are many examples that are undeniable. Do you recall the outcry when a talking lion King toy said clear as day "Fuk me with a banana." ?
-
There have long been concerns among some that Disney promotes the occult and child sex. There are many examples that are undeniable. Do you recall the outcry when a talking lion King toy said clear as day "Fuk me with a banana." ?
No disrespect, but corporations like Disney are well oiled machines which rely on a relatively small profit margin on an extremely large consumer base. Why would they jeopardize all of that and their own future stock options by putting "Fuk me with a banana" in their toys? Their target audience is still kids and they wouldn't even know what those words mean. There is no upside to doing that.
It would be exposed, the product would be recalled and everyone would lose. Wouldn't money be better placed by putting a few dollars towards a trip to southeast Asia if child sex gets you off?
...
-
There have long been concerns among some that Disney promotes the occult and child sex. There are many examples that are undeniable. Do you recall the outcry when a talking lion King toy said clear as day "Fuk me with a banana." ?
No disrespect, but corporations like Disney are well oiled machines which rely on a relatively small profit margin on an extremely large consumer base. Why would they jeopardize all of that and their own future stock options by putting "Fuk me with a banana" in their toys? Their target audience is still kids and they wouldn't even know what those words mean. There is no upside to doing that.
It would be exposed, the product would be recalled and everyone would lose. Wouldn't money be better placed by putting a few dollars towards a trip to southeast Asia if child sex gets you off?
...
Whootie,
I could believe that a bunch of R&D crack-ups put that language on a tape and shoved it in a bunch of toys, what a hoax.
:rofl: :rofl:
I don't believe it was a Company/Corporate conspiracy with political consequences.
-
It would be exposed, the product would be recalled
Yep - thats just what happened.
As I recall the excuse was it didn't really say that; but that the comment was being misunderstood. Local DJz had a field day with it - playing it over and over and asking people to call in an say what they think it was saying. It was pretty clear. That said, people can misunderstand lyrics and sentences. Still, it was easy to hear those words and enough people heard it to make it a story on the nightly news.
-
There have long been concerns among some that Disney promotes the occult and child sex. There are many examples that are undeniable. Do you recall the outcry when a talking lion King toy said clear as day "Fuk me with a banana." ?
Controversial audio here...
http://www.snopes.com/disney/audio/banana2.wav (http://www.snopes.com/disney/audio/banana2.wav)
And the Snopes article here...
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/rafiki.asp (http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/rafiki.asp)
Excerpt: What RAfiki really says is "Asante sana" - Swahili for "Thank you very much" - followed by "squashed banana". As the phrases repeat over and over, they run together and produce something that does sound somewhat like "Squashed bananas up your arse".
Now if you REALLY want to get freaky, check out the cover of The Little Mermaid!!! Never have I seen such profanity - won't somebody think of the children??
(http://http://www.impawards.com/1989/posters/little_mermaid_ver2.jpg)
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/mermaid.asp (http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/mermaid.asp)
-
What ever snopes says - but I heard it played and it was not what is reported here. Not even close. I suspect this is yet another example of an odd "misunderstanding" and the excuse they gave for it.
-
Now if you REALLY want to get freaky, check out the cover of The Little Mermaid!!! Never have I seen such profanity - won't somebody think of the children??
(http://http://www.impawards.com/1989/posters/little_mermaid_ver2.jpg)
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/mermaid.asp (http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/mermaid.asp)
I can see some such examples being accidental. But occasionally there is reason to suspect it is intentional. An example (scroll down) http://http://urbansemiotic.com/2009/04/28/my-old-kentucky-penis/
Difficult to believe this wasn't intended.
Have you an opinion of the Donald Duck ride from the OP link? Intentional or not?
-
An example (scroll down) http://http://urbansemiotic.com/2009/04/28/my-old-kentucky-penis/
Difficult to believe this wasn't intended.
I wouldn't have "seen" it unless it was pointed out and I don't think it was intentional. I think people are reading/seeing waaaaaayyyy too much into these things. And I think a lot of people are afraid of catching "teh ghey" (you can't catch it, stop worrying).
"Offensive" picture in question:
(http://http://boles.com/called/09/ukp1.jpg)
If you don't see it, here's part of the explanation, "It seems, according to scandal and the creation of a legend, that the artist hired to create that Wildcat logo for the University of Kentucky was Gay, and to serve a personal, private, agenda, he chose to include a man’s private parts in the mouth of the hardy UK Wildcat. "
But before that, they address Farrah Fawcett's famous poster They say that the word "sex" is spelled out in Farrah's curls. 1. I don't see it 2. I don't think they took the time or effort to get the curls fall 'just so' and probably most importantly 3. Now...stay with me here but, wouldn't it be sorta redundant in that poster? I mean, doesn't it kinda scream 'sex' anyway? How many young boys had their first "self fulfilling" experience to that poster simply because of the nipples??
(http://http://boles.com/called/09/ukp6.jpg)
Have you an opinion of the Donald Duck ride from the OP link? Intentional or not?
Not. I really think people have a little too much time on their hands and possibly aren't getting enough sex so they're seeing it everywhere.
-
http://urbansemiotic.com/2009/04/28/my- ... cky-penis/ (http://urbansemiotic.com/2009/04/28/my-old-kentucky-penis/)
Ya know...now that I've gone thru some of the other stuff posted there, I'm not altogether sure that it's not satire. It's definitely given me my chuckle of the day. I mean, they're seeing 'wrinkled penises (peni?)' in Pepsi bottles/cans and 'pinched nipples' in orange juice containers?? Really? :eek:
Apparently, the ever-widening mouth is seen as sexually enticing you to drink and the bottle itself is the wrinkled penis.
(http://http://boles.com/called/08/peplog1.jpg)
Here are the new Pepsi logos. Notice how the logo’s white “mouth” changes style and shape to entice you into drinking?
And here we have the cap being the nipple on top of the breast/juice glass.
(http://http://boles.com/called/09/trop1.jpg)
It seems the Tropicana re-design was supposed to suggest not just an orange, but also the juice inside the orange, and so — the experience of “squeezing” the screw cap was to imitate the squeezing of fresh orange juice.
Or, perhaps, that squeezing also invoked a little naughty nipple play as well.
Have I just been punked or did Poe's Law strike again?
-
It might be satire. All I was looking for was a copy of the image, and there it is. Even is the site is satire, the wildcat tongue controversy was real. They changed the logo after the old design was made an issue and now items with the old design are becoming collectible. Having said that, I don't recall anything about the artist being gay. I remember people joking he must be a UofL fan. The only local debate was over the intent to depict anything other than the cat's tongue - was it on purpose that it looked so much like something else?
Having once worked in an art department I would say it was intentional - as is all the stuff done at Disney.
With regard to the Farrah picture - you have a point. Of course it is about sex. No need to write the word in her golden locks. But this doesn't mean they didn't try to do just that. It's subliminal seduction pared with open seduction - seduction X 2 ; which might be why that poster was such a powerful hit with the boys.
Much of whats pointed out in the OP link qualifies as examples of subliminal seduction.
-
I think the guy was probably trying to draw the tongue curling in on itself but messed up.
-
Thats what the artist himself claims. And I have to admit it is very possible. The image is taken from an old late 60's Gene Grey print :
http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/a ... y-wildcats (http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/adolph-rupp-signed-print-by-gene-gray-ky-wildcats)
I can't find a better image, but this can give you an idea. The cat is facing forward and "screaming". Trying to draw this in a logo form could result in the image we have seen. However it also affords one a fine excuse to have a little fun with it.
-
The only local debate was over the intent to depict anything other than the cat's tongue - was it on purpose that it looked so much like something else?
See....now I never would have even seen it if someone hadn't pointed it out. And even then I was kinda like "meh, yeah....I guess it sorta looks like that". I really think people are seeing/reading waaaayyyyy, WAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY too much into this stuff.
Having once worked in an art department I would say it was intentional - as is all the stuff done at Disney.
"All" the stuff at Disney? You "know" that from working once in an art department? Was it a Disney art department?
A close family member is an artist and worked in that capacity for a major newspaper for over 40 years. I asked him about all this stuff and he just shook his head and laughed. He said that it might happen occasionally by some prankster, but no....it's not part and parcel to art departments.
There sure do seem to be a lot of conspiracies theories floating around lately.
-
Well, I can't Prove All the Disney stuff is intentional - but I would say it is as a result of my personal experience and what I plainly see in Disney's studio's work.
Personally, I do feel something sort of creepy surrounds Disney. I guess I've felt suspicious of him in much the same way I might a cub scout leader who shows a bit to much interest in the cub scouts. It's a difficult thing to define just what it is that moves one from well intentioned roll model to a level of suspicious over involvement - but there is a line. The creepy uncle factor. I always felt Disney was across the line and into creepy uncle territory. As a child, I liked the cartoons but didn't like him very much. I couldn't have said why then and I can't now, but there it is. Consequently, it is easy for me to believe that he would attempt subliminal seduction and to sexualize children. When I see images of naked ladies in the background window of the Rescuers, I am not surprised. Phallic symbols in the art work don't surprise - and I do think it intentional - it doesn't even match the rest of the castle architecture. Donald duck leering at children's crotches as they ride his doesn't surprise me. It all seems to fit the creepy uncle I've always felt he was.
But tiz all just my opinion.
-
Well, I can't Prove All the Disney stuff is intentional - but I would say it is as a result of my personal experience and what I plainly see in Disney's studio's work.
What is the personal experience you're speaking of? Did you work for Disney studios?
Personally, I do feel something sort of creepy surrounds Disney. I guess I've felt suspicious of him in much the same way I might a cub scout leader who shows a bit to much interest in the cub scouts. It's a difficult thing to define just what it is that moves one from well intentioned roll model to a level of suspicious over involvement - but there is a line. The creepy uncle factor. I always felt Disney was across the line and into creepy uncle territory. As a child, I liked the cartoons but didn't like him very much. I couldn't have said why then and I can't now, but there it is. Consequently, it is easy for me to believe that he would attempt subliminal seduction and to sexualize children. When I see images of naked ladies in the background window of the Rescuers, I am not surprised. Phallic symbols in the art work don't surprise - and I do think it intentional - it doesn't even match the rest of the castle architecture. Donald duck leering at children's crotches as they ride his doesn't surprise me. It all seems to fit the creepy uncle I've always felt he was.
But tiz all just my opinion.
As a kid, all I knew of Disney was the movies. I had no idea there actually was a "Walt" Disney.
-
No, I didn't work for Disney. But lets use another situation for comparison. Lets say for example a person has a job on the staff of program # 1. They later hear allegations about program # 2, which they find credible due to what they saw occur in program # 1.
Walt Disney used to have a Sunday night show. He always came on and talked a bit as an introduction. But I think it was an interview I saw - must have been on an early version of 60 minutes - I remember it about like that - except it wasn't confrontational - so more like Prime Time maybe. Anyway, something about him bothered me and it has ever sense.
-
No, I didn't work for Disney. But lets use another situation for comparison. Lets say for example a person has a job on the staff of program # 1. They later hear allegations about program # 2, which they find credible due to what they saw occur in program # 1.
I hardly think that's an apt comparison and I think it was kind of a cheap shot to use it get your POV across.
Walt Disney used to have a Sunday night show. He always came on and talked a bit as an introduction. But I think it was an interview I saw - must have been on an early version of 60 minutes - I remember it about like that - except it wasn't confrontational - so more like Prime Time maybe. Anyway, something about him bothered me and it has ever sense.
Ah, yes....I do remember that now. Didn't know it was "Walt" back then though.
-
I hardly think that's an apt comparison and I think it was kind of a cheap shot to use it get your POV across.
I was just trying to find a similar situation we could both relate to. I certainly didn't intend it to be a shot of any sort - cheep or otherwise. I'm sorry if it came across that way.