Originally posted by CIAGypsy
It has been pointed out by several posters that the OP *is* just regurgitating information she has read elsewhere and which has been provided in many other places on ATS without adding any additional information or new insight of her own. Just because she has quoted something she read elsewhere does NOT mean she (or the person she quoted) isn't "making some reaching speculation." Quoting someone else doesn't mean the original quote is golden and without contestation....
First of all, who ever argued that the "occult" doesn't use symbolism? Our entire language and communication structure is based upon symbolism. But that doesn't make any particular symbol something evil or intended to enslave the masses. There are many symbols in existence which can represent many different things to different cultures based upon where and how they are displayed.
Secondly, AO Spare is far from an authority on sigils or the occult. He was an artist who dabbled in chaos magick. You'd have been better to quote someone like Peter Carroll or Kenneth Grant whom was a primary influence for Spare. And unless you are making the claim that the alleged "illuminati" is operating strictly based upon chaos magick, then the previous posters argument still holds that the claim doesn't follow your suggested pattern. Chaos magick is only one stream of "occult" philosophy and not even what I would consider a mainstream one at that....
Visionary artist and mystic Austin Osman Spare, who was briefly a member of Aleister Crowley's A∴A∴ but later broke with them to work independently, is largely the source of chaos magical theory and practice. Specifically, Spare developed the use of sigils and the use of gnosis to empower these. Most basic sigil work recapitulates Spare's technique, including the construction of a phrase detailing the magical intent, the elimination of duplicate letters, and the artistic recombination of the remaining letters to form the sigil. Although Spare died before chaos magic emerged, many consider him to be the father of chaos magic because of his repudiation of traditional magical systems in favor of a technique based on gnosis.
Founded by Frank S. Land, a Freemason, DeMolay is modeled after Freemasonry. With the sponsorship of a Masonic body, a DeMolay chapter often meets in a lodge room or, if not in a lodge room, then some other appropriate room in the same building. Although none of the youth groups are "masonic organizations" as such, DeMolay is considered to be part of the general "family" of Masonic and associated organizations, along with other youth groups such as Job's Daughters and Rainbow. As with Rainbow, a young man does not need to have family connection to Masonry in order to join DeMolay.
Originally posted by Cherry0
reply to post by Ladyk74
Hello OP. Thank you for putting this thread together. Looks like you put a lot of thought and work into it. Very interesting stuff indeed.
Just a couple of things I would like to express however. For your post about Jessica Rabbit, I never really cared for that character (always made me feel uncomfortable to be honest), but I was always under the impression that that movie was for adults and not children anyway. I admit my dad would let my brother and I watch all sorts of stuff when we were really young, much to the chagrin of my mum of course. So my point there is that, in this instance, it is the parents responsibility to monitor what their children can or can not watch.
Hi, thanks for your reply. "Who framed Roger Rabbit" is rated PG. Of course parents need to supervise their children. It is the subliminal part I worry about.
Also, as to your post about the show Flapjack, I love that show, lol. I always thought it was hilarious. Same for other shows like Chowder, Invader Zim, Adventure Time, etc. Even the originals like Ren & Stimpy, Dexter's Lab, Powerpuff Girls, etc.
So even at my age, I still like some cartoons. I love the creativity and humour in it. Sure there are some stupid ones out there, but I still enjoy them nonetheless.
I blocked Flap Jack from my 4 year old who was pretty confused and scared after watching this. Of course it is not disturbing to adults, but for a child I believe it is. I grew up on Disney and my children watched them as well. Back then I had no idea about the subliminal part or the history of Walt Disney and what family values it actually teaches young girls.
I turned out fine. My kids are fine. I am more strict with my kids though with what they watch than how my dad was with my brother and I. No Aliens or Chuckie movies for them, not even Disney movies. Too late for my first though. I had no idea at the time. I had all the old classic Disney movies from when I was a kid myself, so I let her watch. I still have the original VHS video and case of The Little Mermaid with the phallic object. I also have the original VHS of the Rescuer's Down Under with the small image of a woman's breasts in a background poster in
one of the scenes.
I believe I turned out well too, though a couple members in this thread would argue this statement..lol. If you teach your children good values and don't subject them to this constantly, I believe they will be fine. However I'm actually pretty upset about the subliminal part and I'm very cautious on what my kids see on tv. I think it's about awareness,this was why I started this thread.
All in all, thanks for the info and your own perspectice on this subject.
Or we can get into the prayer to the Greek god Zeus found on the seal among other things which evidence the strong influence of the mysteries on the development of the great seal.
"In 1934 Mr. Hall founded the Philosophical Research Society, dedicating it to the ensoulment of all arts, sciences, and crafts, and devoted to the one basic purpose of advancing the brotherhood of all that lives, to meet all lovers of wisdom on a common ground."
"Although Christianity began as a cult, Christianity's 2 billion+ followers make it now the most widespread of the worlds religions." Reference: Society the Basics 11th edition 2011, John J. Macionis, Chp 13 pg 386
Originally posted by bknapple32
Originally posted by Ladyk74
reply to post by iwilliam
Not sure were you have the impression from that I stated sex is evil? However, how do you justify placing sexual content hidden and in plain sight in Disney movies such as an erect Penis, or the obvious erection in the mermaid movie (which was later removed)?
It has no place of being in there and has nothing to do with sex being evil. Sex is for adults, not children. It goes back to going over the family values Disney teaches our children, especially girls.
A little research goes a long way. I admire you for all the work youve done. But the number one rule in researching is to first try and discredit yourself. Try and find out the counter arguments and see if you are just purporting myth.
I proved you were doing just that, purporting myth when it came to the $ symbol. And now I do the same with The Little Mermaid phallic symbol.
I give you this:
Little Mermaid myth
The Palace with the Phallus Claim: One of the castle spires on the cover of Disney's The Little Mermaid home video was deliberately drawn as a phallus by a disgruntled artist. Status: False. Origins: One of the castle spires in the Artwork in question background of The Little Mermaid promotional artwork bears an unmistakable resemblance to a penis, so much so that many people are unwilling to dismiss the drawing as mere accident or coincidence. Rumors started circulating shortly after the release of the videocassette edition of The Little Mermaid that the phallic object had been deliberately drawn as a last act of defiance by a disgruntled Disney artist who was miffed at being notified that he would be laid off at the conclusion of the project. The plain truth is that the resemblance between the castle spire and a penis was purely accidental, and it was drawn by an artist who was neither disgruntled nor about to be dismissed.
First of all, the artist who created the video cover art did not work for Disney itself, thus he was neither "disgruntled with Disney" nor "about to be fired." We questioned the artist, who also drew artwork for Little Mermaid theatrical advertising, pop-ups, greeting cards, Happy Meal boxes, and CDs. The theatrical posters were done before the original release of the film, but the video cover art was not created until a few months before the home video version hit the market. Rushed to complete the video artwork (featuring towers that were rather phallic to begin with), the artist hurried through the background detail (at "about four in the morning") and inadvertently drew one spire that bore a rather close resemblance to a penis. The artist himself didn't notice the resemblance until a member of his youth church group heard about the controversy on talk radio and called him at his studio with the news. The later laserdisc release of the film was issued with a cover containing an altered version of the infamous spire. Contrary to common belief, the phallic-like spire did not make its first appearance with the cover to the home video version. The same background drawing of the castle, with the same spires, appeared in promotional material and posters that accompanied the film's original theatrical release. The video cover does differ slightly from the original version, but the castle shown in the background is the same in both versions. (Later versions of the laserdisc cover were altered to remove the offending spire.)