Friday, June 6, 2014

Socialism & Lesbianism: Maleficent & Animal Appetites

When a tale is being re-told, the new version has a choice: either uphold the lessons of the former and re-define the challenges in the new day, or subvert the old tale, change it, and turn it to your own cause; the later is known in politics and art as "propaganda," and this is the choice of Disney's new film, Maleficent, which follows with Disney's Frozen and The Lone Ranger. We have been seeing the very characteristics of socialism and socialist regimes being attributed to capitalism--which has its own problems, no doubt, but not the problems of socialism--and the very name Maleficent verifies this for us.
Maleficent is clearly a symbol of feminism--her use, and even her abuse, of power--an extreme environmentalist (her Moors at the start of the film are supposed to symbolize an "Alternative Eden," one free of the practice of virtue and the fear of punishment, where one does not strive to be worthy of God, rather, one strives to pleasure themselves and their passions) and, because there is no "ruler" nor employment in her Moors, she is a symbol of the utopian socialist (granted, the three fairies were keeping border security, but since they later help Stefan in protecting Aurora, it can be argued that they really aren't fairies to begin with, they have always belonged to the human realm, which is why they take on human form). Why does Maleficent look the way she does? Why does Maleficent have such "sharp" cheeks? Why does she have horns? Why does she have animal eyes? Why does she look like a vampire? Maleficent has horns because of her "animal" nature, as opposed to her virtuous nature (because she doesn't have one). Herein lies one of many of the contradictions of socialism (contradictions are important because they help us to detect evil in people's thinking, or lack of thinking; truth has to be consistent, however, just because something is consistent doesn't mean that it is the truth, but it's one of the symbol identity markers of what truth must be). Maleficent is the champion of nature, but she herself is "unnatural." There were many accusations against Elsa in Frozen, some of which I did not feel were justified; however, those same accusations are justified in Maleficent.  From the time she is a girl, Maleficent has bright, red lips; why? The mouth symbolizes the appetites. Even though socialists accuse capitalists of feeding the appetites, socialism has even greater appetites or the unnatural (promiscuous sexuality, perverse sexuality, perverting the natural order, denying free will, surrendering liberty and, that greatest socialist craving of all, the hunger for power). Maleficent's horns symbolize her allegiance with the devil, who is often depicted as a horned goat (in her Moor Kingdom, nature is worshiped, not the one who created the nature, God). Her cheek bones are sharp because of the saying when one is hurt to, "Turn the other cheek." Maleficent, when she doesn't receive the invitation, is so insulted that she retaliates in a hysterical manner, just like Feminists do when they feel they have been slighted for a promotion or someone doesn't value their work on the level they think it should be valued upon. So instead of "turning the other cheek," Maleficent has her cheek bones like radar, heightened and strengthened, to catch every possible insult which may come her way so she can pay it back ten fold. Her skin is deathly white because a corpse turns white as it rots, and she is a living corpse. She has the eyes of an animal because the eyes are the window of the soul: animals, while they have been created by God, were not created in the image of God as humans were, so animals do not have souls, only humans do. Maleficent does not have a soul because socialists do not believe in God nor any power that could be called "supernatural" (yes, this would seem to be a contradiction with Maleficent's powers, or the very fact that she's a fairy, however, they would cite the genre as a reason why they are not in a state of contradiction here; I would cite their tendency to glamorize and falsify everything as a reason of why they do this). In this particular image, why does she have that black "choker" around her neck? Black is always the color of death: either one is dead to the world, or one is dead to the soul, and Maleficent is dead to her soul because she actively participates in the world; the neck, or anything around the neck, illustrates what it is that "leads us" in life, like a leash. Maleficent being dead to her soul (in this case, we would probably say her love for Stefan) is what leads her and guides her to do what she does. The strange "collar" of her dress coming up around her neck resembles leaves and petals of a black, poisoned flower, suggesting she is not a flower of virtue to be admired and enjoyed, but a poisonous plant to be feared because it causes death. Now, something I would like to point out is that her clothing is obviously artificial, she isn't dressed in leaves or grass or something like that: her dress is obviously made out of a material that has been processed; why is this important? She wouldn't have that dress if it weren't for the people in the town whom she condemns and looks down upon. In other words, socialists are happy to condemn at large what they think their enemy stands for, however, in reality, they are unwilling to give up their taste for luxury because they tend to be highly vain.
Maleficent tells Aurora, "There is evil in this world," and what evil does she refer to? Not herself, certainly, even though the very name "Maleficent" means "evil," rather, she refers to King Stefan, Aurora's father, who is named after Saint King Stephen of Hungary, who took the name of the first Christian martyr as his Christian name after baptism. What the socialists have done--and this is exactly what we saw in Noah, also--is taken the profane and made it holy, and turned the holy into the profane. Noah and Maleficent (and I am sure there have been others previously, but this is far more of an assault now with this bigger budget, expanded audience films) intentionally pervert--that is, turn upside-down--the political order and the religious order; why?
"Diaval" is a mis-spelling of "diavel," which is the word meaning "devil." Since we first see the character as a black bird--raven or crow, I don't know which--that makes sense tying him to the devil because it's a bird of death (and that, after all, the film makers do know what "Maleficent" means, in tying her to the devil, however, they believe the audience too dumb to know or care; Diaval's change into a dragon towards the end of the film is the ultimate validation of this because the dragon, as the ancient, unnatural serpent, is the devil's worst expression in art). Aurora plays with the bird and calls him "Pretty bird," because she doesn't know any better that the devil hates her and wants her ruin and destruction. So, you may ask, if that is the case, why bring her food and watch over her? Well, we have seen this same scene, essentially, twice before, in the pro-capitalist films Man Of Steel (Superman's original home planet where they were harvesting people) and in Tom Cruise's Oblivion where the Tet was growing Victorias and Jacks to harvest the earth ("harvesting the earth" is what we will be seeing Eddie Redmayne's character doing in next year's Jupiter Ascending; so, again, we have a reversal of attributes, the sins of socialism--destroying the environment because, when the government owns all industry, there is no one there to enforce the government follow its own laws, and government employees get rewarded when they cut costs, just as we have seen in the last week with Obama's Veteran Administration scandal; for specific in-depth study on how socialism destroys the environment, please see Ecocide In the USSR). Maleficent, hating the child, doesn't want the child to live, however, when the child does live (the child is a drain on resources and is one more mouth to feed), the socialist state recognizes that it requires more people to work and support it, even as it discourages pregnancy and couples having children. The flower Diaval brings for Aurora to suckle is, literally, an environmental "nipple" for the child to be weaned upon, just as we saw "Nipple Confusion" in the anti-capitalist film Young Adult with Charlize Theron (please see Nipple Confusion: Young Adult & the Debate Of Art in Capitalism for more). So, Aurora is being "fed" on the environment by those who hate her (Maleficent). As for Diaval, while he probably isn't gay, he is a weak male who is completely at the will of Maleficent, who changes him according to what she wants, and this is imperative because it offers a further illustration of the "unnatural-ness" in the film and the socialist agenda overall: just as socialists believe people can change genders or sexual preferences as they want, so they believe you should be able to change any form that you want, because there is nothing special or sacred about the being you inhabit, you are just an animal, like Diaval's countless changes between man and animal. 
For the same reasons we saw in Godzilla: the feminists and homosexuals want to destroy the world created by white men (who are the dominant power holders and, thereby, property holders) and take us back to the world of no property or technological advancement (technology must advance according to the free market, so in their need to destroy capitalism--the free market being an intricate part of capitalism--they are willing to abandon what drives technological advancements and price deductions: competition); in other words, Maleficent and Diaval are the MUTOs we just saw Godzilla take out to maintain the balance of nature (please see Erasure & Time: Godzilla (2014) for more). But this is where Maleficent, and the socialists in general, make a huge mistake.
Why does Stefan cut off Maleficent's wings (as you read this, please note, I am a white female myself)? This is how Feminists see their achievements in history, that they have been victimized by dumb white males, who had to "clip women's wings" so white men weren't threatened by them, that women could have achieved far more had men not put restrictions on their social and professional progress. Just as it's Aurora who releases Maleficent's wings and "restores" them to her, so socialists argue that the younger generation of females must see how they themselves are oppressed so that women can unite and destroy their male oppressors. 
Dichotomies are not good for Marxists to play with. "Good and bad," "strong and weak," present and absent," "male and female" or "rich and poor" are examples of dichotomies, polar opposites. In the 1960s, Marxists and those who would be Marxists employed Jacques Derrida's philosophy of Deconstruction to reveal power structures embedded in the American political system (and around the world). The Marxists wanted to demonstrate that the way Western Civilization thinks--in terms of these hierarchical dichotomies, with one being good, and its opposite being bad--is determined to "lock out" those who are the white man's "other," the woman, the black man, those who don't hold property, those who don't think like white men in anyway, and this was used as a rallying cry to unite all "minorities" (those who weren't white men) to overthrow--not only the white man--but his whole system of thinking that kept him in power. This is why socialists should not employ dichotomies: they are utilizing the very thought and value system they claim keeps them out of power and they promise to overthrow. Non-white men would replace dichotomies with narratives and means of discourse that oppositions and dichotomies would not be capable of understanding, like those we are seeing in Maleficent,...
It's important to establish that there is no moral code is this Moor Kingdom over which Maleficent rules: everyone lives by their appetites. That's why there are trolls (again, we saw them in Frozen and, as I predicted, they are being "re-defined" by the Left so as to assist in making the perverse holy. Trolls are evil, ugly creatures, but the Left wants to make the audience embrace them, so they make them personable; however, the "mud-slinging" in which they engage still betrays their essence, because trolls will always deal in that which is foul and filthy, regardless of what an animator makes them look like. When Aurora gets into the mud fight with them, she soon tells Maleficent she wants to live in the Moors and that's a sign of the growing lesbianism to which Aurora is being exposed [the mud being a good way of symbolizing lesbianism because it, like homosexuality in general, has been part of the perversions of American society until somewhat recently, depending upon how you view history]). Aurora is an obvious appeal to the Millennials to embrace the socialist utopia--seeing as, like Aurora, they own nothing so have nothing to lose with a socialist revolution of wealth redistribution--but also the agenda of the environment and the "castration," politically and financially, of white males and, what they address as "white privilege" (more on this below). 
When the narrative first opens, we are told that there were two kingdoms (a dichotomy) and one was a kingdom with no king or queen, and it was a fairy land that was nothing but peace and happiness for all who lived there: we see the "inhabitants" of this utopia--for it is intentionally designed as a political utopia, where there is no one to rule it--and they are strangely animal, even the "girl" who lives there because she has these horns. Now, all we have to do is ask: what political system has no monarch (supposedly), claims to be a utopia, the inhabitants are all animals (as opposed to being considered human) and there is no technology (symbolized by the iron that burns fairies)? A socialist state, trying to tempt women into buying into it by showing it "ruled" by a woman.
Need more proof?
Prince Philip is useless and pointless--he can't even find his way to a castle, or awaken the sleeping damsel--so the white male power establishment is all ready being rendered "powerless" in the powerless, weak and pointless character of Prince Philip, who before, in the original Disney Sleeping Beauty, had such a important, powerful and imperative role to the balance of society and the restoration. Philip is nothing more than a prop, and that's exactly what Feminists want to happen: men must now take up the lower, undesirable position that women have been confined to for centuries, a prop, and women will get to take power and lead.  Women are now doing to men what we saw Mrs. Banks do in Mary Poppins, when the "Votes For Women!" campaigner sings, "Though we adore men individually, we agree that as a group they are rather stupid," but now it has moved to the individual level because, in the final scene, Aurora is physically and powerfully closer to Maleficent than to Philip who will be forever on the outside of their intimate relationship, so, for socialists, perfection has been achieved: women are in power, weak, effeminate men are in power, and white men are now regulated to the "margins" of society. 
Why does iron burn fairies?
Iron, even though it occurs naturally in the earth, was the element man (not woman, but man) learned to use to begin the Iron Age which set in motion what Western Civilization has become today; again, we saw this very same thing in Noah with "the sons of Cain" learning to smelt metals and build, and they were the cursed race; Maleficent clearly echoes this condemnation and uses it as a rallying cry to destroy the world that, as they see it, was created by their oppressors, white men. Is this simplistic? Of course it is, but that's because that's how socialists think: "Get an enemy and unite against them and destroy them at whatever the cost!" and this is how they always do it.
Does anyone else wonder why Aurora received only two gifts instead of the traditional three gifts? Well, don't, because that is socialism for you: you can't have anyone that is too excellent. In the original story and the original Disney version, Aurora was given the gift of beauty and song, then she was cursed, and so the third gift was that she would only fall asleep instead of dying. In Maleficent, Maleficent makes the curse a death-like sleep, but still no third gift is awarded. Aurora was given beauty and that she would never be blue, all who met her would like her, and that was it; why not give her intelligence? Because socialism doesn't want people who are intelligent and it especially doesn't want anyone who is so good at exemplifying something that they become a standard, so Elle Fanning is cute, but she's not gorgeous, because gorgeous people don't belong in a socialist state, you are trying to be better than everyone else and that's competition and that is wrong and evil, according to them; it's far better to be mediocre.
The last idea I want to discuss is the opening statement by the narrator, that we are going to learn "the true story" of what happened; this assertion of "truth" also passively claims that the other story--including the story which came to us through the Brothers Grimm, are lies. Why would the film makers of Maleficent want us to believe that Disney's original Sleeping Beauty and the Brothers Grimm stories are lies?
This is so typical of Feminists and THEIR war on women they are waging: curse the infant who can't protect themselves, just like abortion. But this scene at Aurora's bedside echoes the later scene of Maleficent at her bedside because both times, a curse comes form Maleficent's mouth: in this scene, it's the curse, in the latter scene, it's a suggestion of lesbianism when Maleficent replaces the prince as the one who bestows "Love's first kiss," and yes, the film intends for us to understand it romantically because of what happened between Stefan and Maleficent on her sixteenth birthday.  This is a strong suggestion that "true love" can only exist between two women because both Stefan and Maleficent say that true love doesn't exist, therefore, Aurora is bound to stay asleep forever (except that Maleficent's kiss awakens her, and "awaken" is a sexual metaphor in this case, meaning, that Aurora's sexuality has been awakened by Maleficent). Additionally, at the end, when Aurora is supposedly being crowned, the arrangement is more like a marriage between Aurora and Maleficent than a coronation, which we should not be surprised over, because it's typical for "two kingdoms to be joined" at a royal marriage, and the joining of the kingdoms is exactly what happens. Again, Philip in the background is merely a prop, to show how unimportant he is.
Because they can't "sell us" a different version of the story if we are holding up the originals as the standard, the model of reality, and that's exactly what socialists don't want: they want people to believe they have been lied to about history, and they then present a revisionist history--just like what we saw with the story of Noah, that everyone in all three world-wide monotheistic religions are familiar with--and what was evil in the original tales, really isn't evil at all. Again, these are threads of socialist propaganda we see in both Frozen and Noah.
Until the end of the film, we don't know who the narrator is except that it is a female voice (although, in today's world, that could be a trans-gendered female). As we started out this post, the all tales which are the "revised version," of which  Maleficent is, has a choice in either supporting the original narrative or subverting it. In making a character who is labeled "evil" the heroine--because she overcomes her enemy, King Stefan, she successfully wins the battle--the film makers want us to follow down the same evil path as Aurora does in rejecting her father, so we are supposed to reject our fathers (the Founding Fathers, who settled this land out of "greed and ambition," the film would argue, and are therefore the enemy of humanity) and embrace the kingdom full of animals--those living by their animal appetites and passions, as opposed to the law of the land or the moral codes of religion.
We can, sadly, expect even more films like this, including another Angelina Jolie film, her portrayal of Cleopatra, and an animated film Medusa.  Medusa, like Maleficent, is a character created to warn women not to become for their own well-being and happiness (please see The Medusa Within: Clash Of the Titans (1981) for more on the historical significance of the Medusa in art and literature). I don't expect Kenneth Branaugh's upcoming Cinderella to be revisionist (I could be wrong) however, I confident that the first "teaser trailer" focusing on the glass slipper, a material object of great value and supernatural origin (the fairy god mother) would be the front and center introduction if he were going to present us with socialist philosophy that denies personal property and the existence of anything not tangible. As always, each film we see aides us in being able to understand the expanding vocabulary and the dialogue taking place so that we, too, can, take place instead of passively being indoctrinated.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner