Let's Compare Disney's Offenses
Advancing the "LGBT" agenda in a kids movie.
Once upon a time, it was paramount to appeal to, not offend, the sensibilities of patrons to gain support, boost a product or service or to entertain. Simply, a brand or personality worked hard not to offend its customers or potential customers. Yet Disney is proving through its standard indoctrination model that it arrogantly intends to leverage its mammoth size and mass popularity to manipulate the minds of our children and confront the values of all.
Yes, that’s a strong statement. But it’s true.
The live-action version of the 1991 original animated movie “Beauty and the Beast” is set for release on March 17. The marketing and public relations folks have earned their big bucks through its promotions of a vastly popular family fairy tale, only to announce with just days to spare that the movie will feature Disney’s “first ever gay moment on screen.”
The story features a prince punished for his arrogance by being magically morphed into a monster hidden in a scary, remote castle. The Beast imprisons Beauty (Belle), whose affections he must win to return to his humanity, or else live forever as an unloved and unloving animal. The story’s villain is Gaston, a caricature of a man.
And it’s only in the revised narrative that LeFou, Gaston’s awkward sidekick, is portrayed to be “confused about what he wants,” according to Director Bill Condon. LeFou, he says, is “somebody who on one day wants to be Gaston and on another day wants to kiss Gaston.”
Condon is praised by Attitude Magazine, the “UK’s leading online gay magazine,” as having done “a terrific job of updating the ‘tale as old as time’ and adapting for a modern audience.” The piece reveals that “LeFou’s romantic feelings towards Gaston are much more pronounced than we were expecting” with a “happy ending — although it’s very brief and you can’t help wishing Disney could have squeezed a few more seconds out of it.”
Moms and dads be advised.
Let’s contrast this propaganda with a lesson from Disney’s past.
One of the first Disney movies to feature live actors versus only animation, the 1946 movie “Song of the South” won Academy Awards, including the first Oscar given (albeit honorary) to a black actor. The movie was deemed controversial, however, because its storyline featured a former slave, Uncle Remus, gleefully telling tales of Br'er Rabbit outsmarting Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear — without the proper nod given to Remus’s discriminated condition. Among the tales, Remus tells his nephew in the story of Br'er Rabbit’s encounter with Tar-Baby, a doll made from tar and turpentine, used by Br'er Fox to entrap his furry prey. The whole idea of a tar baby is sometimes considered racist.
By the 1980s, “Song of the South” had vanished down the memory hole, locked in the deepest, darkest corners of the Disney vault. Disney decided not to offend its audiences — even as unintentionally as this fun story had done — with images or narratives that might create confusing cultural conflict that opposed values taught in the home.
Today, Disney, with its own theme parks, cable network programming, lavish merchandising that mirrors its children’s animation, and unending library of digital recordings for instant replay at home, is an arsenal deliberately aimed at the minds of our children, and our culture at large, to pick off any beliefs that might threaten their “inclusive” agenda.
Positing that “Most Disney Movies are Pro-Gay,” Akash Nikolas wrote for The Atlantic in April 2014, “Disney films have been both traditional and subversive, serving wholesome princess stories to a largely hetero-normative global audience while also subtly appealing to queer children.” The article reminds readers that the entertainment giant has been hosting “gay days” at the Orlando Disney World park since 1991.
The LBGTQ influences in the World of Disney has grown, but it’s not a recent development. Let’s return to the comments of “Beauty and the Beast” director Bill Condon. His choice of words to describe one of the characters in this gay moment are: “He’s confused about what he wants.”
That’s the root of concern. If a society operates on its feelings and desires only, instead of its intellect, knowledge and defined morals, hedonism results. What is hedonism? The school of thought or approach to life that pleasure and happiness are the primary ends of our existence.
Do parents want to sow seeds of reinforcement that confusion is normal and rewarded by a love interest? Do we, as a civil society, want to put before our children loveable characters whose lusts are fulfilled as a “happy ending?” Is it beneficial to normalize confused identity?
Assigning victim status to those with gender disorientation pathology has served the homosexual agenda well. Agreeing as a society to echo this victim status has only added to the confusion of many and equated those who reject this confusion as “hateful.”
So where has Disney come in 70 years?
Whereas “Song of the South” was unintentionally offensive to certain sensibilities, revising “Beauty and the Beast” to advance the homosexual agenda is deliberately offensive to the religious convictions of millions of Americans. And not only that, but the Rainbow Mafia will be out with calls of “bigotry!” against any who, like Franklin Graham, call for boycotting Disney’s latest effort.
So much for “Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay!”