The Propaganda of Disney Parks

"The mediator between head and hands must be the heart" - Metropolis, 1927

We all know that Disney movies have propaganda, but what about Disney Parks? Could their dark rides and roller coasters try to influence our thinking as they manifest the beliefs of their creators? 

The idea of theme park propaganda is a bit difficult to get. There isn't a lot of messaging you can dump on a roller coaster or ferris wheel. However, hat doesn't prevent theme parks from showing beliefs and promoting behaviors. Just the right degree of imagineering and we got just another medium for indoctrination. 

There was once a theme park in Orlando, Florida. It's name was "Splendid China" and contained shows about Chinese culture and miniatures from its landmarks - from the CCP perspective. The park was controversial from the very beginning for  promoting party lines and would eventually die out. 

Disney's propaganda might feel a bit more subdued, but upon closer examination we can find that they do have it in some of their rides. 

For starters, if the ride is based on a movie, the film's messages will be transfered to it. One of the shows in Animal Kingdom is "Zootopia: Better Zoo-gether" and it repeats many of the ideas from the film - namely, diversity.  

Now, I don't think speaking about movie-based rides is worth my time, because in that case I can just judge the movie by itself. However, Disney rides aren't always movie rides. Since the beginning they have portrayed different aspects of human life, often with original characters designed exclusively for the park. 

Today, in the Pasture of Knowledge, I will show you some interesting analysis from different Disney parks, rides, and themed areas.

Disneyland and Magic Kingdom

The original Disney park opened in 1955 and became an instant hit. Later, in 1971, Disney opened Walt Disney World Resort,  the Florida location. That place has more parks, with the Magic Kingdom being a  copy of Disneyland in Anaheim. 

The parks are divided in multiple sectors: Adventure Land, Frontier Land, Liberty Square, Fantasy Land, and Tomorrow Land. Upon first glance they represent different genres in story telling like science fiction, westerns and fairy tales. 

However, I think the Disneyland areas also manifest liberal humanist values. Individual Disney rides promote classical liberal ideas of freedom, fraternity and democracy, while the sectors represent different aspects of humanity which are  dutifully glorified by the hand of Disney magic. America and liberal capitalism are promoted as well. 

While it's possible that my interpretation of Disneyland and the Magic Kingdom isn't what the designers intended, I think my theory can defend itself upon scrutiny. I will proceed, therefore, to explain why I think the overarching message of Disneyland is American Humanism. 

Adventure Land is a glorification of the age of exploration and conquest, without which the American empire wouldn't exist. It also represents human bravery and the desire to find new things. 

+ Pirates of the Caribbean is a glorification of Anglo-Saxon piracy. The corsairs used to sabotage the Spanish empire, whose merchant ships from america were the constant prey of the pirates. 

The same was the case with the now abandoned Discovery Island, which was initially themed to pirates - and named Treasure Island.

Frontier Land, New Orleans Square and Liberty Square are a glorification of the American nation. We have different rides themed to different areas in the US, such as the south, the badlands, and eastern america. Liberty Square represents the founding of America.

+ Tom Sawyer's Island represents American love of freedom. It's a garden full of youthful energy which the visitor can explore without restrictions. On the middle we can find a fort, such as the ones which were built to expand American territory. 

+ Splash Mountain glorified southern culture and ways of life. However, this ride has been removed at both locations because the film its based upon is widely  considered to be racist. We went from glorification of the old South to a corporate woke cancellation, as the log flume was hastily replaced by Tiana's Bayou Adventure. 

+ The animatronic spectacle of "Hall of Presidents" is a glorification of democracy, the presidents, and the political system of America. On the other hand, the fact that they have animatronic representations of dead people should be interpreted as a manifestation of American irreverence. 

+ The show "Great Moments with Mr.  Lincoln" needs no explanation, as it involves president Abraham Lincoln.

+ Sometimes, just by removing a ride, Disney can say a lot of things. Last year, the company destroyed the river area of Frontier Land in Disney World. It will be substituted with one themed to the Cars franchise. For me, this represents that Disney is slowly abandoning their American pride.

Fantasyland, taken as a whole, represents Human imagination and it's dreams for a world were happy endings are always coming to fruition 

+ The ride "It's a Small World" contains a series of dolls decorated to different nations. As the vehicle moves, the following song is repeated in multiple languages: 

"It 's a world of laughter

A world of tears

It's a world of hopes

And a world of fears

There's so much that we share

That it's time we're aware

It's a small world after all

There is just one moon

And one golden sun

And a smile means

Friendship to ev'ryone

Though the mountains divide

And the oceans are wide

It's a small world after all

It's a small world after all

It's a small world after all

It's a small world after all

It's a small, small world

Mother earth unites us in heart and mind

And the love we give makes us humankind

Through our vast wondrous land

When we stand hand in hand

It's a small world after all

source

"It's a Small World" therefore represents peace and unity, as well as naturalist fraternity. 

Tomorrow Land is perhaps the most interesting part of the park. You see, Walt Disney was fascinated with progress in technology. Personally, I found Tomorrow Land to have very strong Star-Trek vibes: An intergalactic brave new world, were there is nothing but pleasure and the laws of the Enlightenment rule the worlds.

+ The prime example of this would be the Carousel of Progress, an animatronic spectacle narrating the history of technology through the 20th century and it's services to the American family. The ride presents an extremely positive attitude towards the future of technology. The song "Big Beautiful Tomorrow" decorates the show. 

"Welcome, to the general electric carousel of progress

Now most carousel just go 'round and 'round without getting anywhere

But on this one, at every turn we'll be making progress

And progress is not just moving ahead

It's dreaming and working and building a better way of life

Progress is the sound of a motor

The hum of a turbine

The heartbeat of a factory

The sound of a symphony

The roar of the rocket

Progress is people getting release from drudgery

Gaining more time to enjoy themselves and live richer lives

And as long as man dreams and works and builds

This progress will go on in your life and mine

There's a great, big, beautiful tomorrow

Shining at the end of every day

There's a great, big, beautiful tomorrow

And tomorrow's just a dream away

Man has a dream and that's the start

He follows his dream with mind and heart

When it becomes a reality

It's a dream come true for you and me"

Source

+ The ride "People Mover", in which the visitors take a ride around Tomorrow Land, is intended to be the public transport of the future. People Mover provides some interesting lore about the area, such as Astro Orbiters being a representation of interplanetary peace. 

+ Astro Orbiters and Space Mountain represent the desire of humanity to explore space. 

+ The ride "Buzz Light Year's Space Ranger Spin" represents the means by which tomorrow will be preserved. You move through cardboard cartoon planets, shooting at the enemies which are funded by evil Emperor Zurg. The subtext of this ride is that Tomorrow, the fight against those who oppose progress will continue until they surrender. 

EPCOT 

EPCOT stands for "Experimental Prototype City of Tomorrow, and it's basically an expansion of Tomorrow Land.b

It's history is very interesting. EPCOT was  one of Walt Disney's last projects. His plan was to build an utopian, futuristic city that would influence other metropolis around the world. That didn't turn out, for everyone around him thought his idea was impossible to accomplish. Walt died on 1966 and didn't accomplish his dream. 

However, his successors turned the idea into a park project. EPCOT was opened in 1982. The park was meant to be educational and promote scientific knowledge; EPCOT has changed significantly since it's golden years, and many of its rides and pavilions have been abandoned or refurbished. I will speak about its attractions - some of which are currently defunct - and their meanings

+ EPCOT's dreams for a better tomorrow are showcased quite clearly in the ride  named "Spaceship Earth". Here, we travel through time and witness the history of communications with a slight luminist tone and lots of dreams for progress and the future. 

+ A similar message was found in the defunct dark ride "World of Motion", which narrated the history of vehicles and transportation. 

+ "Living with the Land" has equally strong tech-bro energy. The ride starts with a very US-centric explanation on different biomes and the history of the ground. Then, the ride explains that humans, in their quest for better farms, have done some things which are harmful for the environment, such as pesticides. 

Fortunately, Disney has a solution. They have built a greenhouse where they showcase "new and innovative" ways of farming with less impact on the planet, like aquaponics. As always, the ride intends to generate a strong sense of hope for technology to improve forever and ever. 

+ Horizons was a very similar ride to Carousel of Progress; but instead of telling the history of technology and it's benefits to the American family, it told the future of technology and it's benefits for the American family. The end of the ride was decorated by an utopian sci-fi mural named "The Prologue and The Promise".

+ The park hosted a large convention building named Communicore, and later Innoventions. This area showcased multiple tech demos from companies like Apple, Sega, IBM and Lego. 

At some point, Innoventions had a ride which was sponsored by the military brand Raytheon. Instead of blasting middle eastern countries tough, the attraction consisted in people designing their own roller coaster and then experiencing it in VR. 

+ EPCOT's weirdest ride was "Ellen's Energy Adventure", in which Ellen DeGeneres and Bill Nye "The Science Guy" would explore the history of fossil fuels as well as some other sources of energy. The show was sponsored by Exxon, and it portrayed oil and gas in a very positive way. 

"Ellen's Energy Adventure" was initially called "Ellen's Energy Crisis", but Disney wasn't ready to tackle controversy on its educational park. Now, the things have changed significantly - I'm pretty sure Bill Nye still has nightmares about his role on the show. 

+ The "Wonders of Life" pavilion included a show named "The Making of Me", in which human reproduction was explained. 

+ The ride "Journey into the Imagination" and it's successor "Journey into Your Imagination with Figment", are about human creativity. The visitors are encouraged to use their imaginations, something quite ironic for a corporation like Disney to say. 

Anyways, the original ride presented many areas in which imagination can be used.  It focused a lot in the arts. Aside from literature, this was one aspect of Human Life not yet glorified by Disney Parks. 

The newer ride focuses more on poking fun at serious people. As a miserable guy tries to explain the 5 senses and their role on imagination, Figment, the cartoon purple dragon, interrupts him. He breaks mayhem, farts, and tells visitors that imagination works better when it's set free. 

+ The main attraction of the park would be the World Showcase, were different countries  would be represented with thematic restaurants, rides and shows. This is similar to "Its a Small World", and it teaches unity, diversity and world peace. Together with the science sector, it represents the ideas of the Enlightenment. 

Conclusion

We have seen that Disney parks do have some propaganda, and that theme parks are a way in which ideas can be taught quite effectively. However, this article wouldn't be complete without considering the current state of Disney Parks. 

You see, the general discourse surrounding Disneyland and Disney World has become quite negative. Disney Parks are becoming way more expensive than they used to be. Some families get into debt just to experience a regular Disney vacation. And those who insist on visiting every year, receive the pejorative name of Disney Adults. 

Many theme park enthusiasts and fans have criticized the company for anti-consumer practices, greed, and a generalized drop in quality. The same acrimony that we see with Disney movies and products is also present in the tourism sector of the company. 

What does this mean for Disney Park propaganda? For me, it means that the idealization of humanity that this parks represent is struggling to fit in with modern cynicism. Disney decline symbolizes the death of old-world liberalism and its prompt replacement with the soulless corporate managerial state. 

Bishop Michael Mary and the Unam Sanctam Initiative.

Last month, a formerly lefebvrist organization known as the  Transalpine Redemptorists got bishop Pierre Roy to consecrate a bishop for them. I am very angry that this took place and I will explain why. 

Firstly, if the first thing you do after leaving the Novus Ordo is become a bishop, there is something wrong with you. Whenever someone enters a new religion, his position should be one of submission and learning. This applies to becoming a sedevacantist from lefebvrist traditionalism.

 Sedevacantism isn't just a theological opinion, valid among others. Its the only thing that prevents the blasphemy of assuming the doctrines of Vatican 2 come from the Catholic church. While bishop Michael Mary might be familiar with catholic doctrine, it stands to reason that he is not ready to be a bishop because of all the errors he might have gotten from his years at the SSPX. 

Secondly, becoming a bishop immediately after conversion is the sign of a power hungry grifter. We don't want such figures to be ordained or given authority in any way, because their presence risks abuses and controversies. 

Thirdly, his ordination is a harbinger of the "Unam Sanctam" initiative, which presents some serious flaws. 

Let me explain what I mean. 

In the Unam Sanctam "open letter", we are supposed to be signing this: 

We, the faithful of the Roman Catholic Church scattered throughout the world, hereby exhort our Bishops and Priests to gather in an Imperfect General Council. We urge them to study together the present condition of the Apostolic See, in order to bring about a turning point in this crisis of the Church. Since Vatican II, modernists have sought to establish a new Church, substantially different from the Church of Christ. 

This is incorrect. Firstly, the modernists aren't trying to establish a new church, they have de facto established a new church. The Conciliar religion doesn't have the four marks for the church. 

The Unam Sanctam itself seems to reject the so-called Cassiciacum Thesis, when they say the following: 

We refuse to believe that the solution to this crisis lies in their ungodly hands. We believe that the solution lies rather in the hands of the faithful clergy...

This is a possible jab to the followers of the Thesis, who believe that the clergy of the conciliar church will one day convert and suddenly gain jurisdiction over the catholic remnant. 

It's okay for the Unam Sanctam to reject this absurd theory. However, if the anti-church hasn't been established yet by the modernists, then why should we reject the Cassiciacum Thesis?

The Letter continues: 

We are asking them to fulfil their duty and join the movement organizing an Imperfect General Council.

We do not wish to live without being subject to the Bond of Faith, the gentle Christ on earth, the Bishop of bishops, the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For many years, we have been forced to turn a deaf ear to the teachings that have been loaded upon us from the Vatican. We do not recognize in those teachings the voice of the Good Shepherd.  

Yes, but then you just claimed a few paragraphs above that they haven't been able to establish their modernist church. Why then are you unable to take the Vatican seriously? 

This situation cannot continue any longer. We therefore hope with all our hearts to see our Shepherds put aside their differences and disagreements and come together for the one thing in which they can find unity: to remedy the crisis of the Apostolic See. 

We are convinced that this will end the various divisions that prevent the True Church from shining throughout the earth with the beauty of its unity. We, as Catholics, are asking for a response to the present situation. Only you can give this to us, assembled in the Holy Ghost through a General Council.

If Unam Sanctam really wants to stop the division between them, he should have called them to open their minds to the possibility that they have been wrong about certain theological matters and invite them to find out what the Church *really teaches* about such matters. He should have invited them to research and see if some of the theological opinions that have been allowed to fester under the great apostasy would leave someone outside the church - meaning, if they are heresy. 

All of this is theological discussions are made harder by the conclave subtext, specially because the Thesis believers will not participate on it. He who brings disunity can't call to unity. 

We will not have the destiny of the Church, the Immaculate Bride of Christ, any longer in the hands of the destroyers.

This is yet another error. The destiny of the Church is chosen by God, not by a group of boomer Pachamama worshipers. While they can certainly impact the Church, she isn't going to go to hell because of them, now will she die if we reject the Unam Sanctam.

We want you, speaking together as the universal Catholic Church, to give us a clear answer on the true nature of the current pretender to the papacy. 

Well, for someone who asks for a clear answer, that last phrase surely has a lot of ambiguity. Who are the "universal Catholic Church?" Does it include the followers of the Thesis? Does it include members of the SSPX? Because sede-vacantists are for sure aware that the "true nature of the pope pretender" is that he isn't a catholic cleric, but an accursed apostate working for the leagues of liberalism, freemasonry and the judeo-centric elites. 

If after consulting together, guided by the Spirit of God, you decide the necessity of placing the visible authority of the Church, the helm of the Barque of Peter, in the hands of a man of your choosing, we desire it.

Some paragraphs ago, you implied a rejection of the Cassiciacum Thesis - and now you seem to be suggesting some openness to it. Why? 

It seems that these people want to organize a big meeting between sede bishops (and other non-sede bishops!) to: 

+ Decide whether the See is Vacant or not.

+ Decide whether we should proceed to make a conclave and elect one of the clerics involved in the discussions. 

+ Elect a pope (if possible) 

Someone should tell whoever wrote this letter that communication skills are essential for society and for big events like this one. There are You Tube movie reviewers whose language is clearer and better written than this thing. 

We do not want your names to go down in the history of the church as those who were afraid to gather together in the Holy Ghost and remedy the greatest evil afflicting the Church: the likely usurpation of the See or Rome by the enemies of God. 

Nice attempt to scare priests and bishops by the "Judgement of Church History", when you  believe that the usurpation of the Vatican is just something that "likely happened". 

We pray that each of you will reflect in your hearts and, joining your voices to the chorus of your brothers, proclaim loud and clear: “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” As Catholics, we must live under the authority of a true Pope and we ask you to tell us where there is one today and, if necessary, to work towards a resolution to the usurpation of Peter’s Throne.

Many conclavist groups, like the one that elected the late pope Michael, try to manipulate everyone into submitting to them by decrying the authority of the Pope, his role as master of the Church, and his importance in the catholic world. Next thing you know is that a group of laymen (including women) got together at a Comic Con and -without regard for Canon Law - decided to "elect" a guy with dubious orders whose knowledge of theology is very basic. 

There is also the implication that if the Unam Sanctam decides that there is a pope, their followers would have to submit to lefebvrist traditionalism and the Novus Ordo pope. It's in the phrase "we ask you to tell us where there is one today", which should probably say "wether there is one today"

Conclusion

My concern for the sedevacantist world has never been higher. To summarize: 

+ They are too quick to accept "converts" from the Novus Ordo and the SSPX as if they suddenly forgot about the infiltration of the Church by Jews, soviets and masons. 

+ They are too quick to lay their hands on guys who want to be bishops. 

My objections to the Unam Sanctam initiative are the following: 

+ The Unam Sanctam initiative can't decide if they want to reject the Vatican Second Popes or not. 

+ The Unam Sanctam initiative can't decide if the Thesis should be rejected or not. 

+ The Unam Sanctam initiative can't decide if the modernists have usurped the Vatican or not. 

+ The Unam Sanctam can't decide if the modernists have made a new church or not. 

Why should I accept their "Council" when they can't even write a coherent letter? 

I refuse to trust them until they prove themselves as true believers, who accept not the Vatican Second "popes".