Disney’s Dystopia

Disney has a perfect score on the Corporate Equality Index, a survey administered by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (HRCF). Despite its officious, grandiose, and even magnanimous sounding pretenses, this organization is largely dedicated to furthering the normalization of transvestite, homosexual, and other sexually chaotic behaviors into schools, politics, places of business, halls of justice, restaurants, churches, and virtually any place where normal people might congregate, whether they like it or not. In order to get this score, Disney had to (among other things)[1]https://www.hrc.org/resources/corporate-equality-index-criteria appeal to this rather tiny, but ever-growing[2]Through the proselytization of children and market-driven efforts to normalize that which is morally repugnant. seamy underbelly of human behavior by

  • Providing health coverage that caters to a host of deviancies, up to and including ‘medically necessary care.’ Considering that by default, health insurance plans tend to cover medically necessary care for normal people experiencing actual ailments, diseases, and accidents, why the specific proviso for the sexually perverted? Because, only the unhinged would consider mutilative surgeries and years-long hormone injections ‘necessary.’ The covered surgeries include, but are not limited to
    • removal of the testicles (orchiectomy) where the skin of the testicles is used to create lumps of skin made to simulate female genitals. The skin of the penis is used (vaginoplasty) to create a ‘vaginal’ canal and ‘labia.’
    • removal of the uterus (hysterectomy) of a woman as well as the removal of her vagina (vaginectomy) . In another surgery, skin is taken from another part of the body, rolled into a shaft (called a neopenis) and attached to the groin (phalloplasty). The skin typically comes from the forearm, thigh, and/or back.
  • Creating marketing and advertising campaigns that specifically cater to them.
  • Providing support to at least one organization dedicated to the transmission and dissemination of the perverse beliefs embraced by them.
  • A record of not lending support to any organization or person who does not agree entirely with them.[3]I.e. support for or endorsement of any Christian organization is forbidden.
  • The creation of ‘gender neutral’ restrooms where males and females make use of the same facilities.

Like all people of sound mind, I recoil in horror at even a brief glimpse into what denying biological realities entails, and I also feel great sympathy for any person who is ensnared in such an all-encompassing web of lies, where the distortions and excesses of the mind lead to a mutilated body, but my sympathy does not extend to what is essentially hatred. For hatred it is, to countenance such perverse beliefs and actions and not reject them out of hand on moral and rational grounds and to point the way to the healing and freeing power of the true and the real. How monstrous must one be to encourage or look aside when presented with such beliefs and actions? It beggars belief.

So much for the corporate side of things, does Disney cater to and encourage the sexually deviant in their theme parks? The answer to that is an obvious ‘yes,’ given that such is required by the HRCF. Indeed, for well-over a quarter of a century, Disney has welcomed (and even sponsored) ‘gay days’ at Disney’s theme parks, subjecting unsuspecting adults and children to the grotesque and perverted vision of the homosexual. Disney also sponsors children’s shows with transvestites encouraging kids to endorse and experiment with a whole host of deviant behaviors.

Having digested all of the above, let’s move on to an event that recently took place at Disney World: a young woman who was wearing a half shirt was told that she could not enter the park without changing her attire. The Disney World FAQ addresses their dress code here [4]https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/faq/parks/dress/. The pertinent clauses inform Disney World customers that Disney reserves the right to deny admission to any “any person wearing attire that is considered inappropriate or attire that could detract from the experience of other Guests” and that clothing that qualifies is that which “exposes excessive portions of the skin that may be viewed as inappropriate for a family environment.”

So, in other words, Disney encourages and funds the most horrific and barbarically sexually deviant beliefs and behaviors both corporately and publicly, but on the other hand, in the name of ‘appropriateness’ for a ‘family’ environment, will refuse entry to the park to a young woman for displaying her midriff[5]In an actual family environment provocative clothing should not be allowed. The point here is the blatant hypocrisy evinced by Disney.. Hopefully, the disconnect from reality at Disney is glaringly apparent.

Given the immorality of our time and lack of cogency on pretty much every issue of relevance, Disney unfortunately has the legal right to have a chaotic and unhinged dress code, but, those of sound mind have a duty not to yield one red penny to such a perverse enterprise and to starve it into the oblivion it so richly deserves.

Notes and References

Notes and References
1 https://www.hrc.org/resources/corporate-equality-index-criteria
2 Through the proselytization of children and market-driven efforts to normalize that which is morally repugnant.
3 I.e. support for or endorsement of any Christian organization is forbidden.
4 https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/faq/parks/dress/
5 In an actual family environment provocative clothing should not be allowed. The point here is the blatant hypocrisy evinced by Disney.


“He had his reasons for doing what he did, please don’t judge him.”

So says the mother of the person who murdered 21 people along with injuring 17 or so more in Uvalde Texas. For these sentiments, she has been (rightly, most people will say) raked over the coals, with excoriations emanating from both the left and the supposed right. Instead of examining the content of her statements and what they connote, most of these responses have essentially been personal attacks directed at her (and her son), which is in itself revealing.

The question that we will be evaluating is the following: Did the individual who murdered 21 people ‘have his reasons?’ If you are someone who subscribes to the morally (but decidedly not financially) bankrupt world view as presented by psychology, then you must stand and shout an emphatic ‘yes!’ And the reason that you must do so is revealed by taking just the smallest of steps back from his mother’s statements and then viewing them with the bare modicum of necessary sobriety in order to see that she is simply repeating the mantra (albeit in a simplified, and therefore more essential form) that the psychologists and their brethren have been telling us for years: no one who sins is accountable for their actions.

For nowadays, there are always mitigating circumstances (i.e. ‘reasons’) for the perpetration and propagation of evil by those who practice it. If one goes marauding and murdering in and through neighborhoods, they have their ‘reasons.’ If one loots places of business, well, they also have their ‘reasons.’ If an expectant mother murders her own child, she has her ‘reasons.’ If a supposed father stands idly by while his progeny is extinguished, he also has his ‘reasons.’ If a person is obese, they have their ‘reasons’ too. If a person capable of performing any work whatsoever lives off of the labor of others via welfare, they have ‘reasons.’ If a male pursues sex with another male, then he used to need ‘reasons,’ but now, he doesn’t need them due to the abandonment of both morality and reason. If a male wants to parade about dressed as a woman, he has ‘reasons.’ If you were to ask an alcoholic why he spends his days in a stupor, you’ll get plenty of ‘reasons.’ If you ask the person who declares bankruptcy, throwing their accrued debt onto the backs of others so that they can pay it off, you’ll get ‘reasons.’ If you ask the drug addict why he’s addicted to drugs, you’ll get ‘reasons.’ If you ask the student why they believe others should pay their tuition, you’ll get ‘reasons.’ If two people want to get divorced, our moral deafness has extended so far that we don’t even need ‘reasons’ thanks to no-fault divorce. Bearing in mind that ‘reasons’ are the fraudulent currency of rationalizations, let us remember that the psychologists have presented us with a litany of never-ending and ever-changing streams of rationalizations (always accompanied by hefty bills for ‘services’ rendered), but no accountability, no responsibility, no stability, and no finality.

How many diabolical actors have been paraded across the stage in the past half-dozen or so decades who have escaped justice due to ‘reasons?’ While they cannot be numbered, the number is staggering. If Salvador Ramos had lived, the taxpayers’ money would have been spent on court-appointed psychologists who would have deluged us with all of the ‘reasons’ for his murderous acts and it is quite likely that he would have eluded justice as so many have done before. Considering only mass murderers, those who come to mind of recent memory include Dimitrios Pagourtzis, who murdered ten and injured 13, and who has not stood trial due to being ‘incompetent’ to do so, and One L. Goh, who murdered seven and injured three, who never stood trial due to also being ‘incompetent.’ One doesn’t need to look very wide or very deep to find many such examples across the gamut of what used to be referred to as human wickedness. What is common amongst them all is that they have all had reasons aplenty, supplied to them (and a credulous public) by those devoid of sound judgment who lined up to feed at the money trough to supply us with said reasons.

As if there weren’t reasons enough in play already, we also have ‘pre-reasons.’ For these same rationalization factories are quick to tell us that if such murderers had only gotten the ‘mental health services’ they needed, their rampages could have been averted, which a moment’s thought will reveal to be a particularly egregious conflict of interest. However, because whatever is true must be averred as such, we are beholden to agree with them on this point, but not for the reasons they might posit. In a particularly ironic twist, the moral miasma created by these same people, if delivered early and often enough along with just the ‘right’ combination of mind-altering drugs, might induce the moral monsters they themselves created to be rendered inert and too confused to put their evil plans into effect. As we’ve often seen, these murderous rampages often occur when such and so has neglected to take their ‘meds.’ But, in the main, they fall primarily into two camps: those who never got their ‘meds’ and those who did get their ‘meds,’ but who stopped taking them.

As to his mother’s other plea, that we not judge her son (with the admonition that no one should judge another person, but rather stick to that person’s actions), her request is again, not only reasonable, but is in fact required of all who view the actions of humans through the shattered glass of psychology. Judgment requires stating that this or that is evil and that there must be a suitable consequence for this or that. The only person capable of right judgment (is there any other kind worthy of consideration?) of any action that isn’t simply accidental, is one who starts with sound morality and who then employs the sound reasoning which will always accompany it. In opposition to this, the psychological world view gives us no morality, no soundness of mind, no right reasoning, and hence, when its precepts are applied to the evils that men do, it has all the effectiveness of a flashlight with dead batteries being used to navigate out of the suffocating darkness of a cave: it is akin to asking a dead man for directions. The amoral and arational are not capable of judgment, hence, they should not judge. So, again, she is right.

Hence, in the final analysis, any person who affirms ‘mental illness’ as a reason for excusing the evil actions of men should stand in line to congratulate the mother of Salvador Ramos for cutting to the chase when she said that he ‘had his reasons.’ And in a complementary sense, any person who likewise subscribes and who concomitantly condemns her or her statements is a fool and an unwitting hypocrite.