|
JoToP -> The Da Micki Code (5/30/2006 3:11:03 PM)
|
Its been right there in front of my face for a long time, but it finally hit me: my sons both have grown up greatly disliking all things Disney. How did that happen? Disney is a sacred American institution of G-rated childness. Disney teaches America’s children all of the essentials they need to know such as “follow your heart,” parents are doofusses who are trying to suppress youthful expression, Circle of Life, magic, and other great stuff that makes it possible to live the American Dream. I’m wondering if, taking their present attitude, JoToPs A and B are going to find themselves marginalized in the Magic Kingdom. Mrs. JoToP and I, having discovered our shortcoming in the boys’ education, began to rifle through all the childhood material, looking for the key that turned the boys away from following their Disney Sing-Alongs, took them to Disney World... where did we go wrong and why did they apostatize from the Way of the Mouse. Our search for the answer to this perplexing question led us into an excavation of that dust-laden cache of ancient documents, our Attic. It was dangerous work, but essential to discovering the mystery behind the boys’ defection. We first bombed the attic with insect foggers to cut down on the danger of spider bites and the prospect of getting the willies from camel crickets. Then, with mag-light beams cutting through the dust and fume, we made our way stealthily into the hostile environment. We carefully removed the dust from the boxes stacked one on top of another until we located the one we had been searching for, the children’s books. After a great deal of rearrangement and dislocation, we managed to get the box out of the attic and into the safety of the adjoining studio where we could examine its contents in a friendlier light. One by one we removed the thin, chipboard covered documents from the box and flipped through them, looking for clues. We studied dozens of documents about obsolete objects of technology— steam locomotives, steam engines, dump trucks, tugboats, even a steam shovel (interesting how important steam is in childhood development— I may have to do a separate study on this)— each having to justify their existence in the onslaught of higher technology. In spite of the somewhat Amish slant, we decided these had not seriously effect our children, so we passed on. The entire set of Babar looked suspicious, an Indian Elephant who was a monarch, quite un-American. Still, this did not seem to have had too deleterious effect on the boys’ psyche and could not account for an anti-Disney paradigm. On and on we went, through tigers, and baggy elephants, puppies, clowns ({{{shudder}}}, can’t believe we raised the boys on those horrible entities), more trains (what was it with trains??? I don’t remember a story about how horses and bisons were displaced by trains. Nothing on the replacement of chariot or wagon technology.), down, down deep into the nefarious box until we struck of vein of Disney booklets. I was amazed at how few Disney books we had and it wasn’t long before one particular book grabbed my attention. I don’t know what it was, a feeling that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up when I touched the book called Mickey’s Picnic. I sat back on the floor and read through the book. It was about all the Mickey gang preparing to go on a picnic (hence the title): Mickey, Minnie, Daisy Duck, Goofy, and Pluto. What struck me was that Donald was missing. Ostensibly, according to the story line, Donald had not been invited because in the past he had “caused trouble”, but no specific “trouble” was named. That got my attention! What was the True Reason behind excluding Donald from the picnic. The gang packed the picnic basket and loaded it in the balloon tire, Betty Boop-style car and headed for the picnic site. When they arrived, they left the picnic basket at a certain spot and went to the swimming hole for a swim. That didn’t look right to me. No one in his right mind would ever leave a picnic basket alone in a cartoon setting. This is a favorite scenario for cartoon ants as anyone should know. Its almost stereotypical and yet, leave the basket they did. It just didn’t smell right. While the gang swam, Donald showed up! He was angry at having been left out of the picnic. This is a similar motif to Olympian goddesses being left out of Jovian banquets and causing wars on earth. I began right there to suspect that Donald was not Donald at all, but was Donna, an evil duckess who had been sanctified in later tradition and transformed into the benign Daisy. Donald and Daisy are really one and the same person, split into to personalities in order to fill in the gaps of this later invasion of the narrative by subsequent redactors. Note how he extracts his revenge. First, he stole the picnic basket, thereby depriving them of their sustenance, then he tied the legs of their trousers making it impossible for them to cover their nakedness. Both of these motifs have their roots in pagan culture, the wrath of the gods on the crops and the lack of shame resulting from the Fall. These are the driving principles behind Disney, if you think about it without the taint of a predominantly Warner Brothers world view. And this underlying principle made it necessary at some point for the Disney myth brokers to adjust the more innocent and pristine story to conform to the new ideas of Disneyism that were evolving and driving the industry. Now, I could be wrong in my interpretation of these encrypted symbols and I’m open to correction, but I think I’ve sealed up the case that there is something else happening in layers below the story as it is given to us. After all, if we took this story at face value, it’d be of no more significance to us than a child’s story. There has to be a subliminal message or else I’m wasting a lot of time typing this expose. You can’t expect Disney to come right out in the open and reveal their hand, they’re definitely going to couch their real agenda in symbolic terms. On one page, for instance, you have a picture of the gang sitting around the picnic basket. If you look carefully at Goofy, you’ll notice that he is actually Clarabel Cow with a black nose bulb attached precariously to his face. But the nose bulb is out of perspective, revealing that Goofy really does not own that nose bulb and since Clarabel Cow is the only character who does not have an indigenous nose bulb, Goofy is obviously Clarabel in un-drag. I would suggest that Mickey is purely fictitious and is simply a reworked version of Goofy, who is the real leader of the Mickey Mouse Club, which, according to early cartoon works now considered by the established Disney system to be pseudopigraphia, was originally called the Goofy Cowgirls. But Goofy has been “demoted” so to speak because he really is a cartoon zealot and the myth of the Magical Mickey, the humble and contrite mouse, has been put in his place. But you can’t just jettison Goofy completely so he is consigned to the lesser role of Mousketeer. But remember, Goofy is really Clarabel Cow, which means that the original leader of Mickey’s Gang was a female. Naturally, in the early, pre-feminist days when Disney was just getting started, they couldn’t make this public, so Clarabel became Goofy. This wasn’t uncommon, think of such masculine pseudonyms as George Eliot. Pluto, who looks exactly like Goofy, but doesn’t talk, is really an early attempt at demoting Goofy from zealot leader to disciple. After all, who can really imagine a mouse keeping a dog for a pet. As shocking as it may seem, I have to conclude that there is not, nor has there ever been such a person as Mickey Mouse. And my boys saw right through this at an early age. I tell you, its frightening, but we have to face the truth and not allow this lie to go on any further.
|
|
|
|