Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: ServusSpiritusSancti on July 03, 2010, 01:17:15 PM
-
It may sound ridiculous, but there really is a connection between Mary Poppins and the occult. This article from lhra.com explains why.
"No, I’m not going crazy! There really is a connection between Mary Poppins and the occult.
I learned about it when a friend called to say she had taken her children to see the new Mary Poppins Broadway play and found some of the stage imagery to be unsettling. It looked strange and ungodly.
When she got home, she began to root around the internet for information and found out that the author of the Mary Poppins series, a woman named Pamela L. Travers, was very much into the occult, theosophy, Hinduism, Zen, etc. Although the Disney film (which Travers apparently hated) was clean, her books are quite dark and mixed with many occultic elements from magick to reincarnation, all of which came from her association with theosophy.
Born Helen Lyndon Goff in Queensland, Australia in 1899, the author claims to have been able to read by the age of three. She grew up, changed her name to Pamela L. Travers and tried her hand at acting but was not successful. In 1924, she moved to London where she made a living reporting on theater events.
It was here that she met the Irish intellectual, George William Russell, known as A. E. Russell, who was a follower of Madam Blavatsky and theosophy. (Theosophy, which has been condemned by the Church, is a modern version of gnosticism that blends pantheistic and occult beliefs.)
Apparently, Russell believed he and Travers had met in a former life, and formed a friendship with her, helping her to expand her circle of friends to include occultists such as G. I. Gurdjieff and P.D. Ouspensky. He also introduced her to esoteric eastern religions and folklore, encouraging her to use her powers of fantasy to create stories.
Not surprisingly, her first Mary Poppins book, published in 1934, contained many of the occultic ideas that had by now permeated her life. Far different from the clean and happy “Julie Andrews-type” Poppins that appeared in the Disney movie, Travers’ Poppins was a strict, ascerbic character who hated to be touched and was downright terrifying at times in the book.
Helene Vachet of the Theosophical Society’s Quest Magazine clearly describes the theosophical meaning behind much of the symbolism and story of Mary Poppins.
“Mary Poppins, one could say, resembles a guardian angel, demon, or cosmic being who comes from time to time to visit Earth,” Vachet writes.
The sky and wind bringing Mary Poppins to Cherry Tree Lane refers to a “walker of the sky” described in theosophic writings as a siddhi, or spiritual power to which a yogi joins himself to “behold the things beyond the seas and stars” and to “hear the language of the devas”.
Travers’ Mary Poppins is referred to in the books as the “Great Exception,” which Vachet says means that “she has gone beyond the evolution of humanity and her life now stands in contrast to those who have not yet reached this stage.”
One can also find clear references to reincarnation in a scene involving a starling and the newborn Annabelle. When the bird asks where she came from, Annabelle says:
“I am earth and air and fire and water . . . I come from the Dark where all things have their beginnings. I come from the sea and its tides, I come from the sky and its stars . . . I remembered all I had been and I thought of all I shall be.”
The zoo scene in the book is also filled with occultic imagery. In this episode, the animals run the zoo and all the people are in cages. The king of the animals is a huge hooded snake that Poppins calls “cousin.”
The Disney version of the story was far different, much to Travers dismay. She was said to have been downright irascible throughout the filming and hated the final product. Among her many gripes was the fact that Bert the chimney-sweep had such a big role in the film, that the Cherry Tree Lane home was so opulent and that Mary Poppins “had a figure.” The 65 year-old Travers was said to have wept in despair when she first saw the film.
As the New York Times described in a recent article, Travers was “plainly a little bonkers, self-consciously oblique, and had much of Poppins’s own astringency.” She was described as controlling, self-absorbed, sharp and intensely lonely.
Travers also had a strange private life. She had a penchant for older men and conducted several long-term relationships with women which are referred to as being “ambiguous.”
At the age of 39, she tried to adopt her teenage maid, offering to build the girl a room off of her study, ostensibly because she felt the girl’s parents had enough children. Both the family and the teen refused her offer.
In 1939, she was successful in adopting one of the twin grandsons of A.E. Russell’s publisher and, according to her biographer, was allowed to pick the twin she liked best. This son, whom she named Camillus, grew up believing that his father had been killed in an accident and didn’t discover the truth until, at the age of 17, he ran into his twin brother in a pub.
All the while, she continued to dabble in the occult, Sufism, Tao and Zen, and was a devoted disciple of Gurdjieff (co-inventor of the Enneagram) and even spent two summers in the U.S. living with the Navajo Indians. She passed away in 1996, having lived to the ripe old age of 96."
Please give your thoughts after reading the article.
-
Well, gee Spiritus, I went to see Mary Poppins at Radio City Music Hall when it first came out. I even had a Mary Poppins doll.
Maybe that's when all my troubles began..... :scared2:
-
Woops sorry I meant to put this in the Resistance Movement catagory. Hey Matthew, can you please move this to that part of the forums when you get a chance? Please no one post on this thread until it is moved. Thank you.
-
I always thought that Mary Poppins was a very clean, and
wholesome entertainment.
Compared to movies made today, there is no
comparison.
You never see a movie like Mary Poppins made today.
-
I'll put my two cents in, for what it's worth, which is getting less and less each day.
I can believe all that is said about the author. I can believe all that is said about the film. They are two different things. I will quote Joseph again. They meant it for evil but God meant it for good. People can go to extremes, seeing good where evil is and seeing evil where good is. I think what we see is who we are.
-
I read every single one of the Mary Poppins series as a child.
The movie surprised me, because Mary Poppins was not at all kind. We had a pretty large library at home, so I waded through a lot of material unsupervised.
The Theosophical influence does not surprise me at all when I recall how cruel and cross Poppins always was, and how there was never any emotional satisfaction.
-
The vast majority of 20th century entertainment is occult. The vast majority of all entertainment has probably always been, if not occult, dangerous to Catholics. The Catholic Church has had a very uneasy relationship with literature and opera and theater.
As the New York Times described in a recent article, Travers was “plainly a little bonkers, self-consciously oblique, and had much of Poppins’s own astringency.” She was described as controlling, self-absorbed, sharp and intensely lonely.
Yep, sounds like the classic bluestocking ( female artist/intellectual ) personality, the Emily Dickinson personality. I used to be fascinated with Emily Dickinson when I was an "artist," but I remember being disappointed in one biography I read where she came off like she had major NPD.
I had never thought about Mary Poppins, nor did I see it when I was a kid. But, except that it doesn't sound like she could be pleased with anything in life, I don't see how the author wasn't pleased with Julie Andrews. JA is ideal to portray that self-obsessed, prim "butter wouldn't melt in her mouth." Sort of like a bad Virgin Mary -- virginal but narcissistic and cold.
A heartless Puritan, basically.
Julie Andrews makes my skin crawl. You can feel this hidden meanness underneath the sweet exterior. Probably the most laughable screen romance in film history is Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson in Darling Lili, I remember seeing that once. This is long past the point when Rock Hudson cared to portray a convincing heterosɛҳuąƖ. He looked like he just wandered on-set drunk. The ice-queen and the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ -- I'm telling you, Hollywood does this on purpose. I don't want to get into modern rumors but it's still the same. Seeing unnatural or strange actors on screen does something to the mind, it makes you think abnormal people are normal, it flips reality.
-
I was referring to the movie. Never read the books.
-
Don't feel bad, RomanCatholic1953, nobody has read them, nobody would even want to read them; they are truly depressing. Travers probably only got published because her friend was a mason or something.
I also read every single one of the Doctor Doolittle series...wonder if Hugh Lofting was a warlock? I hope not! We had all of the children's library from my father's family, and I was forbidden to watch TV.
-
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_B6J6nGs6VwA/SOemkZlMTRI/AAAAAAAAINI/ZZINHKyfyLA/s400/Mary+Poppins+via+starpulsecom.jpg
People will think I'm nuts, if they don't already, but in the occult, "London" or "England" stands for the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, referring to the fact that England was the first country to overthrow the Catholic established order. London is the hub of the NWO. So the image of Mary Poppins, an English nanny, floating around with a black umbrella is definitely occult, but not in a Theosophist way. She simply IS Satan, ha ha. She's probably also a version of Elizabeth Tudor spreading her wings over the world, establishing her occult imperium.
The movie is Disney, too... So why are we even arguing? It's definitely Satanic. The devil portrays himself in various ways in various works of art, and Disney has never met a devil-figure it didn't like, whether it was the Mad Hatter or Captain Eo or Beast from Beauty and the Beast. Mary is another one of these here, blasphemously given the name of Our Lady.
Each of these characters represents a different facet of the devil's personality, from mercurial madman ( Mad Hatter ) to boys' adventure hero ( Eo ) to noble, ruined prince fallen from grace ( Beast ). I would say he is portraying himself in Mary Poppins as a highly efficient high-fashion nanny who is putting the world in order HIS WAY, which is really disorder.
The disorder-through-order, order out of chaos theme is in the books, from what I've just read. They are part of the bad old English tradition of psychedelia, whether it's Alice in Wonderland or the Beatles. Pay attention to the Alice reference, the tea party:
Wikipedia --
"Mary Poppins Comes Back, published 1935
Nothing has been right since Mary Poppins left Number Seventeen Cherry Tree Lane. One day, when Mrs. Banks sends the children out to the park, Michael flies his kite up into the clouds. Everyone is surprised when it comes down bringing Mary Poppins as a passenger, who returns to the Banks home and takes charge of the children once again. This time, Jane and Michael meet the fearsome Ms. Andrew, experience an upside-down tea party, and visit a circus in the sky. There is also a new addition to the Banks family with little Annabel. As in Mary Poppins, Mary leaves at the end, but this time with a "return ticket, just in case" she needs to return.
I'll be waiting with my Gatling gun, Poppins.
Look how Mary Poppins is efficient and all business yet everything around her is insane, upside-down, etc. That's the paradox of the devil, how he efficiently and coldly and intelligently goes about his business of making everything stupid and random, in order to reap the most souls. The devil is not stupid, and not insane, he is simply pure arrogance and rebellion. But he wants to make everyone else insane by making them break all the rules and live like wild animals.
So think of it this way -- the kids are living a boring Catholic life, persevering and bearing their crosses. But then that fun devil comes and livens things up by taking them onto a yellow submarine or whatever. This is the usual junk kids are peddled. Anti-responsibility, world-loving messages.
Odd too that the "evil" character has almost the same name as the actress who later played Mary Poppins... Not a conspiracy, this one, just odd!
-
Oh, and how could I forget the NUMBER SEVENTEEN, once again, as with Fatima. It would take me too long to get into that number and how often it crops up in occult Hollywood and rock music.
I'm not saying seventeen is bad, by the way. I was born on the 17th. Satan is the ape of God and imitates his use of numbers. The question is, when is it God and when is it His ape?
-
How about Peter Pan?
-
And how has number 17 to do with Fatima ?
-
This trailer will settle all doubts about Mary Poppins... LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T5_0AGdFic
-
If a non-catholic is reading this thread, it is no wonder people stay away from the Catholic religion and some laugh at us.
Scruple Beware of:
An unfounded apprehension and consequently unwarranted fear that something is a sin which, as a matter of fact, is not. It is not considered here so much as an isolated act, but rather as an habitual state of mind known to directors of souls as a "scrupulous conscience." St. Alphonsus describes it as a condition in which one influenced by trifling reasons, and without any solid foundation, is often afraid that sin lies where it really does not. This anxiety may be entertained not only with regard to what is to be done presently, but also with regard to what has been done. The idea sometimes obtaining, that scrupulosity is in itself a spiritual benefit of some sort, is, of course, a great error. The providence of God permits it and can gather good from it as from other forms of evil. That apart, however, it is a bad habit doing harm, sometimes grievously, to body and soul. Indeed, persisted in with the obstinacy characteristic of persons who suffer from this malady, it may entail the most lamentable consequences. The judgment is seriously warped, the moral power tired out in futile combat, and then not unfrequently the scrupulous person makes shipwreck of salvation either on the Scylla of despair or the Charybdis of unheeding indulgence in vice.
-
Wow! You and I are on the same page without realizing it. Must be the Holy Ghost plowing the field again. I really like the path He took with you. I didn't even think the word "scruples" but it was what I was trying to get at. Love the short cut.
-
P.S. When the saints became entangled in scruples it was only their obedience to their spiritual director which saved them. This is a demonic state which even the saints can't extract themselves from without help.
-
Excellent points about scruples, Myrna and Trinity.
And Goose, that movie trailer does sum it all up.
-
I have never read the book. I have read that the Disney version of Mary Poppins was a warning to women of what would happen to their households if they pursued an agenda outside of the home, the right to vote. That equal rights for women would be the downfall of families, your children would run a muck, your husband would lose his job. The care of your children would be left to strangers, possibly the devil?
-
I didn't know why, I but I always found that movie a little creepy. Now I know why.
Scruples are only a problem where there is actually no danger. But when a warped mind produces a work, the very fabric of that work is warped.
The problem is, most of us were born after television and movies, and so we're used to seeing all kinds of things we really SHOULD object to, but which now seem perfectly normal to us. And the more you watched, the more "normal" or "fine" all of the obvious evils in them seem.
People can laugh, but once you begin watching television with your brain turned on, you begin seeing all kinds of things which we should have very different reactions to (than indifference). Why should we watch, for instance, movies where ideas like divorce or even affairs are touted as normal and even dignified? (Many black and white movies are guilty of those!) Why should we ignore that in many old movies, the costumes of the women are no better than the miniskirts of today are... just that they're immodest on the OTHER half? Why do we overlook witchcraft when it's Mary Poppins, and not when it's Harry Potter? Why is it commendable and satisfying for the Von Trapp children in the Sound of Music to defy and sneak around behind their father's back, when it's not only not commendable, but sinful if children do it in real life? Why is femminism fine in old movies, but not fine in our real lives?
The minute you begin realizing what it is you're sitting there watching with your brain turned off, the more you begin to be horrified that you'd ever watched it. From the plunging necklines of Pride and Prejudice, to the same coupled with sensuality and atheistic thought in Brigadoon, and from the feminism and rebellion of the Hollywood Maria (Sound of Music) to the witchcraft and magic of so many Disney movies (also often coupled with rebellion against authority and so forth)... Hollywood has given us not just a decade or so of complete garbage, but really, when one looks back, it has rarely ever given us anything else, no matter HOW far back you go.
This may seem like a trifling thing on the face of it, especially if you've watched all of the black and white or older movies for years thinking they were so innocent (especially compared to modern films which are downright blasphemous and should be x-rated), but the fact of the matter is, the ideas we see in them work like poison... (Speaking of the audience,) you sit there like a dope and eagerly take it all in with your Catholic brain turned completely off, so that things that ought to boil your blood seem not only not objectionable, but even commendable, because of how they are presented. And you come away none the wiser concerning the poisonous ideas you have just imbibed. Imbibe them enough, and over time they won't bother you at all, but you will come to see them exactly as hollywood planned... Plunging necklines (rank immodesty) are merely "the fashions of the times," rebellion (because of the way it's presented) is cute, brave or otherwise seen in a positive light, and even something like magic, which NORMALLY is associated with the devil, becomes something perfectly "harmless" because the witch, in this case, sings sappy songs and makes the children happy.
The danger is real and actual, here, not imagined. Most of us have fallen prey to it, but thanks be to the Good Lord, most of us have woken up and realized what we were doing, and had the good sense to stop doing it. There may be some old movies that may not be utterly sinful to be watching, as long as you know where the poison is so that you can consciously reject it. But most of us grew up with these movies, and grew up loving them, and thinking them perfectly innocent and fine and wonderful and good, just because we had them in our lives and they gave us warm, fuzzy feelings. Chances are, our parents thought they were too, which is probably how we first got to see them at all. However we're adults now, and so we ought to own up to the responsibility we ourselves bear if we watch them now that we ought to know better.
We're Catholics. Errors and immodesty and sinful ideas, wherever they are found, however they are presented, no matter how sugar-coated, should evoke in us the same reaction as if we were present when Our Lord was carrying His cross, and saw someone spit on Him. It is the reaction we ought to have for sin and error PERIOD. A violent, repulsed reaction, and a seething hatred for anything and everything that offends God, to the point that we couldn't stomach it, simply because it does offend Him. That is the proper reaction we should have to these things. But since most of us grew up watching them, we instead have no reaction at all, and by the time we realize what it is we've been watching, we're left to try to realize the extent of the poison we've been taking in, and to try to begin to form in ourselves that reaction we ought to have had all along.
If we aren't outraged and offended by errors and sinful ideas and visuals presented by movies... movies HOWEVER old... then we ought to certainly start watching out for it now, and try to instill in ourselves a sincere revolt for those things that are dangerous to our faith and morals, wherever we see or find them. If we haven't got it, we ought to get it now. That's not being scrupulous. That's being Catholic.
It's easy to live as a Catholic if it doesn't mean stepping out of our old ways. But here it may require some sacrifice and effort. Here we must admit for the love of Our Lord that we've been duped, that we've been wrong, and strive to not be blind to the evils in movies anymore. If we're not offended by sin or error wherever we see it, then our consciences are far too lax. Errors are errors and sinful things are sinful things, even when there's a tub of popcorn between them and you.
-
Take a deep breath, Dulcamara. When you see these sins, instead of getting mad, why don't you make an act of reparation. It is a slap in Jesus' face so you give Him a kiss. I recite the Divine Praises, myself, but there are many good prayers out their suitable for this.
-
Excuse me, I meant "out there". By the way, I'm sure we can watch Pride and Prejudice without tearing the top part off our blouse. I would be more concerned about corruption not so obvious.
-
<<<Scruples are only a problem where there is actually no danger. But when a warped mind produces a work, the very fabric of that work is warped>>>
There was no danger when I watched. Just someone imagination at work.
-
An evil tree cannot bear good fruit. If the mind is warped, the fruit of that mind will also be warped, whether or not we recognize it as such.
-
Joseph's brothers did an evil deed selling him into slavery. It resulted in the salvation of the Hebrew race.
-
Then there was Bl Margaret of Costello. Her parents weren't even naturally good, but she became very saintly.
-
Well, I guess we'll just let this thread continue even though I posted it in the wrong section by mistake. Mea Culpa. If Matthew wants to move it to the Resistance Movement section (the section I meant to post it on) that would be fine, although it doesn't really matter to me. We can let it slide this time.
Anyway, I never did suspect Mary Poppins to be part of the occult, but then again I never did read the books and now I'm glad I didn't. Even though the movie is clean, I don't want to watch it anyway knowing the author of the books originally wrote it to be just like the books. She sounds pretty much crazy.
-
How about Peter Pan?
Haven't seen or heard anything about Peter Pan being part of the occult, though it wouldn't surprise me if it was. Afterall, Disney was founded by a 33 degree freemason, so you would expect occultic stuff to make its way into Disney products pretty easily. If I find an article on Peter Pan being occultic I'll certainly post it!
-
Oh, come on! I wish Mary Poppins was the worst ting we had to worry about.
-
Oh, come on! I wish Mary Poppins was the worst ting we had to worry about.
You may not care that Mary Poppins is part of the occult, but we care. Perhaps you don't care if something is part of the occult or not, if you like something you won't stop liking it regardless. I can't speak for what you believe, but you should care if something is occultic.
-
When I was young I was never too fond of Mary Poppins (I liked some of the music but I did not like the film very much) and I really disliked Alice in Wonderland.
There is definitely something inimical to Catholicism in the atmosphere those movies create.
-
I like them all, and still do, but I always hated the circus, clowns, and Halloween.
-
Oh, come on! I wish Mary Poppins was the worst ting we had to worry about.
You may not care that Mary Poppins is part of the occult, but we care. Perhaps you don't care if something is part of the occult or not, if you like something you won't stop liking it regardless. I can't speak for what you believe, but you should care if something is occultic.
I do care if something is actually a part of the occult. This is a harmless kid's move.
-
SpiritusSanctus, you are right to question Mary Poppins. How can we think and occultist will write something that is any good for us? And, Disney's spoon fool of sugar version still had occult aspects.
-
And to think we were so naive in the sixties to think that Uncle Walt only wanted to entertain us.....shame on us! :sad:
-
Very interesting points Raoul, and your description of Julie Andrews is spot on. Doris Day is a similar type.
Although I think "Disney" should be distinguished from the "Walt Disney" company. Wasn't he a Catholic? I think his company went downhill after his death.
I had a similar memory of Mary Poppins to Elizabeth and Dulcamara. I saw it when I was a kid and she always gave me the creeps. I can sooner believe she was meant to signify the devil than any angel.
I read a book called Trance Formation of America, and though I question how seriously the book should be taken, the mind controlled slaves would watch Wizard of Oz to reinforce their programming. Supposedly that film is full of the occult.
-
Oh, come on! I wish Mary Poppins was the worst ting we had to worry about.
The question is whether it is good or bad, not whether there are worse things.
Try to think.
-
Great response, Dulcamara. I agree completely. BTW, are you japanese? I remember in an earlier thread someone asking you about japan.
-
Very interesting points Raoul, and your description of Julie Andrews is spot on. Doris Day is a similar type.
Although I think "Disney" should be distinguished from the "Walt Disney" company. Wasn't he a Catholic? I think his company went downhill after his death.
I had a similar memory of Mary Poppins to Elizabeth and Dulcamara. I saw it when I was a kid and she always gave me the creeps. I can sooner believe she was meant to signify the devil than any angel.
I read a book called Trance Formation of America, and though I question how seriously the book should be taken, the mind controlled slaves would watch Wizard of Oz to reinforce their programming. Supposedly that film is full of the occult.
I never heard anything about him being Catholic. Even if he was, he would have been a CINO Catholic, Catholic in name-only. I know Disney was a 33 degree freemason, which therefore excluded him from the Catholic Church.
I wouldn't be all that surprised if the Wizard of Oz was an occultic movie. Something about it seemed occultic.
-
Oh, come on! I wish Mary Poppins was the worst ting we had to worry about.
You may not care that Mary Poppins is part of the occult, but we care. Perhaps you don't care if something is part of the occult or not, if you like something you won't stop liking it regardless. I can't speak for what you believe, but you should care if something is occultic.
I do care if something is actually a part of the occult. This is a harmless kid's move.
You mean movie right? And it isn't harmless. The movie may be clean of occultic stuff for the most part, but the books aren't and besides the movie was originally written to be occultic just like the book.
-
Wow, I didn't know he was a Mason. And you're correct, he is not a Catholic:
The Religious Affiliation of Filmmaker
Walt Disney
Walt Disney was born into and raised in a family of devout Congregationalists. Walt was named after the preacher at his family's Congregationalist church: Walter Parr, a close friend of his father's. [Source: Bob Thomas, Walt Disney: An American Original, Hyperion: New York, NY (1994), pages 24-25]
From "Walt Disney on Faith, Church, Bible Study, Prayer & God" on Disney Dreamer website (v. 29 April 2005):
...I am personally thankful that my parents taught me at a very early age to have a strong personal belief and reliance in the power of prayer for Divine inspiration. My people were members of the Congregational Church in our home town of Marceline, Missouri. It was there where I was first taught the efficacy of religion... how it helps us immeasurably to meet the trial and stress of life and keeps us attuned to the Divine inspiration... Deeds rather than words express my concept of the part religion should play in everyday life. I have watched constantly that in our movie work the highest moral and spiritual standards are upheld, whether it deals with fable or with stories of living action. This religious concern for the form and content of our films goes back 40 years to the rugged financial period in Kansas City when I was struggling to establish a film company and produce animated fairy tales. Many times during those difficult years, even as we turned out Alice in Cartoonland and later in Hollywood the first Mickey Mouse, we were under pressure to sell out or debase the subject matter or go "commercial" in one way or another. But we stuck it out... Both my study of Scripture and my career in entertaining children have taught me to cherish them... Thus, whatever success I have had in bringing clean, informative entertainment to people of all ages, I attribute in great part to my Congregational upbringing and my lifelong habit of prayer...
[Quoted from Roland Gammon's book] Faith is a Star, New York E. P. Dutton & Co. 1963. Roland Gammon went on a search of famous people for content on his 1963 book about prayer... Walt Disney wrote the article above for this publication. Walt Disney held deep personal beliefs. Elias Disney (Walt's Dad) was a deacon and named Walt after the family minister Walter Parr. (St. Paul Congregational Church in Chicago) Walt's brother Herbert had a daughter named Dorothy and she married a minister, Glenn Puder. It was at Walt's request that the Reverend Puder delivered the invocation at Disneyland's grand opening on July 17, 1955. Represented at the dedication were Catholic, Jєωιѕн and Protestant faiths.
From: Ronald Bergan, Sergei Eisenstein: A Life in Conflict, The Overlook Press/Peter Mayer Publishers, Inc.: Woodstock, New York (1999), page 198:
As late as 1946, [Sergei] Eisenstein noted Disney 'as an example of the art of absolute influence -- absolute appeal for each and everyone, and hence a particularly rich treasure trove of the most basic means of influence.'
...Eisenstein and the twenty-nine-year-old [Walt] Disney seemed to have got on well, and they corresponded for some time afterwards. (There is another photo taken at the same time, with Eisenstein standing, his arm around Disney's shoulders, staring down at the figure of Mickey Mouse.) Eisenstein did not live long enough to discover that Disney later became an anti-Semitic, racist, union-bashing, anti-Communist right-winger.
http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Walt_Disney.html
Very interesting points Raoul, and your description of Julie Andrews is spot on. Doris Day is a similar type.
Although I think "Disney" should be distinguished from the "Walt Disney" company. Wasn't he a Catholic? I think his company went downhill after his death.
I had a similar memory of Mary Poppins to Elizabeth and Dulcamara. I saw it when I was a kid and she always gave me the creeps. I can sooner believe she was meant to signify the devil than any angel.
I read a book called Trance Formation of America, and though I question how seriously the book should be taken, the mind controlled slaves would watch Wizard of Oz to reinforce their programming. Supposedly that film is full of the occult.
I never heard anything about him being Catholic. Even if he was, he would have been a CINO Catholic, Catholic in name-only. I know Disney was a 33 degree freemason, which therefore excluded him from the Catholic Church.
I wouldn't be all that surprised if the Wizard of Oz was an occultic movie. Something about it seemed occultic.
-
Good post Henry. Very interesting.