Violent Magical Thinking


If you still entertain the notion that Hollywood operates primarily from a profit motive, consider the response to Georgia's abortion ban from companies like Netflix and Disney.
Bob Iger said it would be “very difficult” for Disney to keep filming in Georgia if the state enacts a new abortion law. 
In an interview with Reuters, the CEO of the Walt Disney Co. said he had doubts the company would continue production in Georgia if the controversial ban on abortion in the state comes into effect, primarily as the company's employees would be against it.
“I think many people who work for us will not want to work there, and we will have to heed their wishes in that regard. Right now we are watching it very carefully,” Iger told Reuters. 
The exec added that if the law does come into effect, he didn't "see how it’s practical for us to continue to shoot there."
Disney's prospective withdrawal from production in Georgia would be a huge blow to the state. Recently, Disney's Marvel Studios filmed portions of both Black Panther and Avengers: Endgame in Georgia. 
Disney's attempted shakedown of Georgia makes zero sense from a financial perspective. Not only is the Mouse risking millions in tax breaks, they're agitating for the deaths of their future customers.

What is the motive behind Hollywood's fanatical support for infanticide? Consider another group with whom Disney is now a willing bedfellow.

That's the Satanic Temple suing to stop an Indiana abortion law signed by Mike Pence. Is it a total abortion ban, a heartbeat bill, or even a bill requiring abortuaries to practice the same sanitation as Wendy's?

No. The Indiana law simply mandates disposing of fetal remains with the same dignity as other human remains, via burial or cremation.

The Satanic Temple is pursuing legal action to prevent murdered babies from receiving a decent burial.

These satanists claim the law could pose undue hardship to mothers seeking to murder their children.

Why? Because it might incline them to think of their dead babies as human beings?

There's another, darker motive.

The Death Cult which rules us, including the Satanic Temple, Disney, and Netflix, don't want these children buried.

They want them sacrificed.

Hollywood, the media, and academia belong to a heretical faith disguised with flimsy secular trappings. Their ultimate aims are not wealth and power. They instead seek warped spiritual ends that are perverted reflections of Christian graces.

Preferred pronouns are the Death Cult's version of transubstantiation. They believe they can turn men into women by uttering the right formula. This article of faith is so sacrosanct to them that they have enacted blasphemy laws protecting these incantations.

Erasing whiteness is an attempt to reverse the Death Cult analogue of original sin. But instead of immersion in water, the one whose skin announces his guilt can only be baptized in his own blood.

But the Death Cult's highest sacrament, the public liturgy which constitutes the deepest expression of their identity, is child sacrifice.

The glib rhetoric claiming they sought to protect women's best interests has been revealed as a sham. If abortion were a mere matter of civics, private companies like Disney would have no cause to risk involving themselves in a political controversy guaranteed to alienate huge numbers of their customers.

Disney, Netflix, and the Satanic Temple just want to keep murdering babies. They need to. The precepts of their diabolical faith dictate that the innocent blood must flow. The children must be fed to Moloch. They must not be interred in the ground--especially not ground consecrated to the hated Christ.

Paul Lucas on Twitter deduces through reason alone why the Death Cult hates the Christ.

Violent Magical Thikning

Authentic sacramentality inverts and confounds all heathen magic. It's as old as the story of Simon Magus.

This should go without saying, but some have been slow to get the picture. Cancel your Netflix subscription, and don't give Disney one red cent of your hard-earned money.


  1. Brian

    Very chilling but revealing.
    My opinion:Georgia should legislate reimbursement of ALL tax breaks since the beginning.
    Lawfare will drain the Mouse from spending it on nefarious projects.


  2. Also note that Indiana's ban on abortions based on the child's sex, race, or disability was struck down and the Supreme Court let that ruling stand.

    China aborted far more girls than boys, creating a large surplus male population.

    I wonder if pro-Abortion Americans will instead abort boys far more than girls.

    1. SCOTUS let the lower court ruling stand because they knew it would mean tackling Roe head on.

      Pro-lifers anticipated the high court's reluctance, which is why we're seeing myriad abortion bans in multiple states, each from a different angle. They're forcing a showdown.

    2. I don't blame the Supreme Court for avoiding this at all costs if you view their primary role as expanding and preserving Federal power vis-a-vis the States. Whatever ruling they issue when this finally comes to a head will accelerate the inevitable dissolution of the USA.

      If I recall correctly, it was a prior Mammon-worshipping GOP administration that lured Hollywood to Atlanta in the first place. "Muh jobs" and "muh tax revenue" aren't worth it.

      Under Brian's "what's most virtuous?" model, Georgia should rescind the tax breaks and in fact raise taxes on companies like Disney.

    3. "Georgia should rescind the tax breaks and in fact raise taxes on companies like Disney."

      For a start.

      If Iger keeps up this rhetoric, Georgia should preempt Disney's threatened boycott by banning them from filming in the state.

  3. Thanks for putting this to pen. I have long know that the Left is a cult. But I lack the ability and education to clearly outline the parallels and perversions.

    This would make a great book Brian.

    1. You're welcome.

      Not sure I have the stomach to do the research a book on this subject would entail.

    2. Emmett

      I think thete's a book that deals tangentially on the subject. The main thesis is that Freud Margret Mead rationalized their bad behaviour. I think the authour is Paul Vitz but I can't remember the title.


  4. Er. I've been very wary of your posts on this topic in the past, but even "Oh My Darlin' Party Line" doesn't quite cut it here, does it?

    1. I mean, it might justify some posturing. Concrete financial blackmail, no. I wonder what would happen if Florida instituted a pro-life bill...

    2. Vox Day suggested the same idea. Let's see if Disney is willing to shut down Disney World.

    3. Brian,

      Speaking of violent magical thinking:

      He's forthright about his beliefs. Now let's deny him the possibility of implementing them


  5. We really should get off Google too, shouldn't we.

    1. You're welcome to. I plan to make them kick me off and then make the rubble bounce.

  6. A completely material argument for Christianity is that it institutes a set of symbolic behaviours that displace these mysteriously persistent and consistent symbolic behaviours, which are surely some sort of evolutionary left-over despite arguably being of negative survival value.

    It wouldn't surprise me if this persistent bent to worship of the demonic and horrible were a purely material phenomenon, but then as we know, purely human, purely material evil is itself essentially supernatural.

    1. Sartre, though a staunch atheist, accepted one Christian doctrine: Original sin. Because it's so self-evident.

  7. @unconcord "we" also shouldn't drive Volkswagons or we don't really hate Nazis and that makes us hypocrites and that makes us Nazis when you think about it.

    1. We are what we are, but Google definitely does hate us the way Disney does. It was a "we" in the sense that (evidently) includes me.

    2. While I'm glad the, "Don't give money to people who hate you," mantra has gained traction, it's clear I haven't sufficiently explained the underlying moral principles.

      It's not about bringing about a positive material change. These companies don't have a profit motive, and boycotts won't faze them.

      It's not entirely about avoiding guilt by association, like some kind of Old Testament cleanliness law.

      Cooperation with evil has two dimensions: formal and material, i.e. how much you will the evil and how much material aid you render it.

      Both types of cooperation can also be more or less proximate or remote--how far removed you are from the actual evil deed.

      Paying to see a Disney movie constitutes formal and material cooperation that's relatively close to the act. It's also hard to argue for extenuating circumstances. There's no pressing need to consume that particular entertainment product.

      Using Google for email, blogging platforms, etc. constitutes only material cooperation--the use itself is not the moral object--which is always less grave than formal cooperation, and is more remote than buying a ticket to a Disney film.

      Requiring Google's services to do one's job, compounded by the lack of good or neutral alternatives, establishes valid extenuating circumstances.

    3. Sorry there bud, it sounded like concern-trolling. Brian's got a brilliant formal answer, my simpler heuristic is this: it is good practice to deny support to those that hate you. I don't think of it as a moral rule (although see above for the moral case) but as something akin to good hygiene, workplace safety, and other positive or risk-reducing habits we cultivate.
      My matrix then, being amoral, works off the relative ease and expense of every individual good habit. Expense include opportunity cost. Compare the loss to Google for not using Blogger, to the loss to Brian. Clearly asymmetrical. But the cost of not watching a movie in the theater is trivial, the cost of not watching it at all negligible depending on social costs.

      Even a partial boycott and only in theaters and if convenient, constitutes a tiny but real marginal loss to the haters. Businesses rise and fall on such considerations. And the small, routine habit is much more sustainable - indeed it soon (-ish) becomes ingrained and thus the stress or cognitive cost to you becomes zero.

      Contrast: if you set yourself against every enemy, at all times, at maximum intensity, you'd burn out or develop a sophist workaround for why it was not really a good idea after all.