# The Evil Truth about Pinocchio; a dark work with a dark message



## JimDuyer (Sep 29, 2020)

I plan on covering Pinocchio in a bit, but first we need some backgroud for my theory.

The English amateur archaeologist Austen Henry Layard’s excavations at Nimrud, sponsored by the British Ambassador in Istanbul,  followed by his  best-selling book, "Nineveh and its Remains" in 1949,  ignited the European public's excitement in ancient Mesopotamia and a veritable flood of new European excavations followed: J. E. Taylor at Ur and Eridu, Victor Place at Nineveh, William Kenneth Loftus at Uruk and Larsa, Jules Oppert at Kish, and Henry Creswicke Rawlinson at Borsippa.   Interesting items were being uncovered, but what the heck did these scratch marks  on all of these clay tablets mean?

 The  Behistun trilingual inscription, (aka the Sumerian Rosetta Stone), on a high almost inaccessible rock face in western Iran, where the Achaemenids (6th-5th century BC) had written a lengthy message in Persian, Elamite and Akkadian cuneiform solved the problem.. These inscriptions were  copied down by British army officer Henry Rawlinson, and they made it possible to assign specific meanings to various cuneiform signs. By 1857, when an inscription from a baked clay cylinder was submitted to Rawlinson and three other cuneiform specialists, their independent translations were nearly identical: the long-lost cuneiform writing system used in hundreds of thousands of tablets for more that 1000 years had finally been solved.

 In the 1870-1890 period, many things began to happen in the land of the ancient Sumerians. Most importantly for this thread, German archaeologists and historians arrived.  These mainly atheist scholars read the ancient works of Babylonia and decided that the Old Testament was a plagerized copy of the earlier Sumerian works.  Never mind the fact that even today only 25% of their entire texts have been translated and understood, these fine gentlemen found the ammunition that they were looking for.

 The slide from Christianity to Agnosticism began during that period, and has continued through today. But with one major exception.  For some reason the top people in government and science decided, as a group, that this was a good thing.  That it might benefit them to break up the power of the various Churches in the lands.  Or if not to dissolve them, then to increase their share of the ever-present balance of power  between Church and State - each of whom desire the people, their money, and their interests, albeit for different reasons.

 An example of this can be found in the work of  Carlo Lorenzini (24 November 1826 – 26 October 1890), better known by the pen name Carlo Collodi. Carlo was a seminary school dropout, a journalist, but most famously an author of  "books for children", and especially (in 1883) The Adventures of Pinocchio.

Walt Disney made a movie of the same name, but if you are able to claim that it was based upon the book, while maintaining a straight face, then you simply have not read the book.

For example, in the Original Story from his book, Pinocchio killed Jiminy Cricket with a hammer to the head, got his feet burned off, and was hanged and left for dead.  And all of that is after his "maker" snuggled in bed with him on a nightly basis.  But let me tell you about it the way that it needs to be told.

You probably already knew that Disney has a habit of taking dark, twisted children’s fairy tales and turning them into sickeningly sweet happily-ever-afters. Take Sleeping Beauty for example: it’s based on a story where a married king finds a girl asleep, and can’t wake her so rapes her instead.

The 1940 version of Pinocchio is no exception. The movie is based on a story that appeared as a serial in a newspaper called The Adventures of Pinocchio, written in 1881 and 1882 by Carlo Collodi.  Jiminy Cricket appears as the Talking Cricket in the book, and does not play as prominent a role as in the film version by Disney.

He first appears in chapter 4 in which the truism that children do not like to have their behavior 
corrected by people who know much more than they do is illustrated.  So when the Talking Cricket advises Pinocchio to go back home, Pinocchio jumps up in a fury, takes a hammer from the bench, and throws it with all his strength at the Talking Cricket.   Yes, my dear children, he hit the Cricket straight on his head, and now he is dead.

 With one final weak “cri-cri-cri” the poor Cricket fell from the wall, dead!   And yes, it is historically true that Jiminy was the original author of the phrase "I didn't see THAT coming."

 But really, we should have seen it coming. Because Pinocchio, like all sociopaths, did warn the kindly cricket:   "Let me tell you, for your own good, Pinocchio, said the Talking Cricket in his calm voice, that those who follow that trade always end up in the hospital or in prison."  And our  dear Pinocchio replied:  "Careful, ugly Cricket! If you make me angry, you’ll be sorry!".  Is this also an example of a racial slur?

At last, karma catches up to Pinocchio and he gets his feet burned off.  At one point in the story he  no longer had any strength left with which to stand, so he sat down on a little stool and put his two feet on the stove to dry them. There he fell asleep, and while he slept, his wooden feet began to burn. Slowly, very slowly, they blackened and turned to ashes.

    Now on to the really fun part–the reveal of what a psychotic, manipulative, pathological liar the Blue Fairy’s original incarnation was.

In the Disney movie, the Blue Fairy is about as benevolent of a character as you’re likely to find. She is basically an incarnation of kindness and love.      In the book, the fairy is known as the Girl with Azure Hair, or the Maiden with Azure Hair, or in a couple scenes the Goat with Azure Hair, or sometimes just the Fairy. Aren't goats supposedly tied in with Satanic worship?  So why equate a "good fairy" with a "goat"?   At the best of times, the most positive thing I can say about her is that she can occasionally act without malevolence. At the worst of times, she is a cruel, spiteful, monster who has all of the faults that she blames Pinocchio for having and others besides.

Pinocchio first meets her when he is running away from two con-men in the guise of Assassins who want to take the gold coins that Pinocchio has in his possession. Fleeing from the Assassins in the woods he comes across a cottage. He bangs on the door until the Girl with Azure Hair (at this point quite a young girl) answers at the window and this exchange occurs:

“No one lives in this house. Everyone is dead.”

“Won’t you, at least, open the door for me?” cried Pinocchio in a beseeching voice.

“I also am dead.”

“Dead? What are you doing at the window, then?”

“I am waiting for the coffin to take me away.”

And then she shuts the window on him. Because she won’t let him in the house, the Assassins catch him, beat him, try to stab him, and hang him by the neck because Pinocchio is holding the gold coins under his tongue and they can’t pry his mouth open.

They get bored waiting for him to suffocate several hours later and promise to come back the next day to collect the coins from his dead body.

The Fairy eventual wanders out of the house, has him cut down from the rope, and he is eternally grateful to her for saving his life even though she was the one who refused to help him when he was in trouble in the first place. He never questions why she claimed she was dead, and she never offers an explanation. I’m really not sure where Collodi was going with that brief conversation – is she supposed to be suicidal? Is it just supposed to be some amusing nonsense in place for no reason and he assumed children would laugh and not try to figure out the meaning? Is there some kind of meaning that is just eluding me because of the difference in time period and culture from where I’m reading it? I really don’t know. But this is not where it ends.

 Pinocchio then gets tempted off to the Land of Toys, where he gets turned into a donkey because he is such a lazy layabout. Donkey's are said to be yet another association with Satanic worship, even from very ancient times.   He gets sold off to a circus where he is forced to perform tricks for crowds, and he sees the Fairy in the audience, with a medallion with a picture of himself carved into it. But she leaves him to his captivity.   Performing "tricks" for crowds, the Blue Fairy (ET) keeping his image around her neck is also a sign of both pedo ownership and associative magic or dark voodoo.

Some time later, after he has returned to marionette form, and ends up out in the ocean, he spots a Goat with Azure Hair on an island.  Again with the Satanic goat?

She beckons for him, but the terrible giant Shark (the origin of Monstro the whale) surfaces. She beckons him yet more, and even reaches out to him and just misses him before the Shark swallows him up. If it were anyone but this Fairy I might believe the "almost" of the helping him was an honest try and fail, but I don’t trust her at this point. Don't pedos put kids in danger and then supposedly "save" them from the "bad guys" as part of their speil?  And, granted, Geppetto is in the belly of the Shark and Pinocchio is able to rescue him there, but instead of just sending Pinocchio in she could’ve just helped Geppetto herself. She does have magic, after all. The Fairy can shapeshift, and what animal does she turn into to save Pinocchio from a shark attack? A goat. A freaking goat. Seriously.  And shapeshifting - wow, another tie to esoteric thinking.

This "island" that Pinocchio was headed towards was supposedly called "Pleasure Island".  Can we get any closer to Epstein-land than that?  Models (Blue Fairies) meeting clones of children on an island of pleasure?  And they seem to have their victims already picked out - evidenced by the lockets around their necks.

The Blue Fairy is a tripartite child-maiden-crone goddess of death-and-rebirth. It’s similar to Isis as sister and consort to Osiris and then later mother to Osiris reborn as Horus. Pinocchio hung on a tree is an ancient portrayal of crucifixion which typically involved tree imagery (nailed to, tied to, pierced by an arrow below, or hung from).   But wait, I haven't told you about that part yet.

  Pinocchio, of course, has some elements of a resurrection figure. This goes beyond his crucifixion and rebirth as a real boy. Like Jesus’ father Joseph, Pinocchio’s father Geppetto is a woodcarver (this is related to the mythological motif of creator/father as a builder). It is Geppetto who calls for the blue fairy and so the two stand in as parents (the father of form and the mother of spirit) to the creation of this new being, Pinocchio.     And Jiminy Cricket?

 When the "blue fairy" comes down from the "sky"  (UFO)  and brings Pinocchio to life, she explains that he's not a real boy, but he can become  one by being brave, truthful, and unselfish. (by passing a test to prove his moral character).  She appoints Jiminy Cricket as his "conscience" and dubs him  "Lord High Keeper of the Knowledge of Right and Wrong".  Where have I heard that phrase before?   The only one who held that role, in Biblical times was Jiminy (Jesus) Cricket (Christ).

 Origin of the name Jiminy Cricket.    The character's name is a play on the exclamation "Jiminy Cricket!", a minced oath for "Jesus Christ" – which itself was uttered in Pinocchio's immediate Disney predecessor, 1937's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs by the seven dwarfs themselves.

 Other contemporary cinematic examples include: In the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy (Judy Garland) cries, "Oh! Oh! Jiminy Crickets!" when she is startled by the Wizard's pyrotechnics; likewise, Garland uses the expression in the 1938 film Listen, Darling; several times it is used in the 1930 movie Anna Christie; and it occurs in the 1938 Mickey Mouse cartoon "Brave Little Tailor".

 In addition, Jiminy Crickets is used in the 1919 novelty song Oh By Jingo! as a euphemism for children ("We'll have a lot of little Jiminy Crickets, we can use them for meal tickets").   Meal tickets?

 A minced oath is a euphemistic expression formed by misspelling, mispronouncing, or replacing a part of a profane, blasphemous, or taboo term to reduce the original term's objectionable characteristics. Some examples include "gosh" (God), "darn", or "dang" (damn), "doggone", or "gosh darn" (goddamn), "shucks", "shoot", "shinola" “shiitake” (shit), "heck" (hell), "gee", "jeez", "jeepers", or "Jiminy Cricket" (Jesus Christ), "feck", "fudge", "frick", "fork", "flip", or "eff" (fuck)

Many languages have such expressions. In the English language, nearly all profanities have minced variants   The use of minced oaths in English dates back at least to the 14th century, when "gog" and "kokk", both euphemisms for God, were in use. Other early minced oaths include "Gis" or "Jis" for Jesus (1528) and  (1602),  Gadzooks for "By God's hooks" (referring to the nails on Christ's cross).

So good old Disney was able to use this same sacriligious phrase in several of his "movies for children", psychologically implanting the idea for years to come.  That makes a good reason for why he would have chosen a book that he "based" his movie upon - because the movie version actually represents a complete re-write, except for these juicy allusions that he was able to add to "spice" things up.

And don’t worry about Pinocchio's burned-off feet —Gepetto (the Creator), forgives him and builds him a new pair of feet, which is really more than Pinocchio deserves. You see, when Pinocchio first became “alive” and learned to walk, the first thing he did was run off.   What’s worse is that Pinocchio leads people to believe that Gepetto has abused him, which lands Gepetto squarely in prison.

But, after all, when you hear about an old man creating something similar to a robot, (News Headline: SILICON LOVERS: Rise of SEX ROBOTS blamed for turning Japanese people into ‘endangered species’ ) and who "wishes upon a star (UFO)" that Pinocchio would become a "real boy", that is of "flesh and blood" as he  was "desirous of a young boy",  then you begin to have some concerns about what is really going on in this story.  Here we have the prototype for sex-dolls, creation by other than God, claims of abuse leading to jail terms, with eventually no charges that stick, and the Pedo relationships of modern times.  Good way to get our grandparents primed for  things to come, right?

The Talking Cricket returns as a ghost (and please remember this paragraph when we speak about reincarnation, and especially the Christ, in a following bit) to tell Pinocchio not to get involved with some people who claim planting gold coins will result in a tree of gold. Rather than apologizing for throwing a hammer at the poor bug, Pinocchio scoffs at the advice once again.  I believe that the "three-strike-rule" was actually implemented for delinquents and repeat offenders like Pinocchio.

And by the way, before I forget, did you notice that Pinocchio's father was a "carpenter"?   Perhaps we should speak about Geppetto, the  kind, sweet, old man, perhaps out of his area of expertise in parenting but an entirely benevolent character.   In the original, though, he has a vicious temper and threatens to thrash Pinocchio at the slightest provocation.  Or as the Old Testament might tell us "a jealous and angry Creator".

Pinocchio’s decision to continue to ignore the angel of Cricket resulted in him finding more grief in the way of being hanged by the very people who had told him about planting gold coins:

   "And they ran after me and I ran and ran, till at last they caught me and tied my neck with a rope and hanged me to a tree, saying, `Tomorrow we’ll come back for you and you’ll be dead and your mouth will be open, and then we’ll take the gold pieces that you have hidden under your tongue.’ "

   So there is some justice in the world after all.  On with our tale.

  The hanging scene was actually where the story was meant to end.  Collodi wanted to convey the message that children could face grave consequences for being disobedient. However, the editor of the paper requested that Collodi continue writing — perhaps wishing for a bit more of a happily ever after. And that’s where the "blue fairy" (aka Extraterrestrial)  came in to save the puppet.

Our Angel ghost Mr. Talking Cricket had a chance at revenge, but he didn’t take it:

    Father and son looked up to the ceiling, and there on a beam sat the Talking Cricket.

    “Oh, my dear Cricket,” said Pinocchio, bowing politely.

    “Oh, now you call me your dear Cricket, but do you remember when you threw your hammer at me to kill me?”

    “You are right, dear Cricket. Throw a hammer at me now. I deserve it! But spare my poor old father.”

    “I am going to spare both the father and the son. I have only wanted to remind you of the trick you long ago played upon me, to teach you that in this world of ours we must be kind and courteous to others, if we want to find kindness and courtesy in our own days of trouble.”

    You can tell that that part was not from Carlo Collodi's work at all. It doesn't fit with his style in the rest of the book - and so we see the Editor's hand (Biblical redactors?) in this section.  So we have a clear conspiracy of the PTB controlling the narrative here. We will find this frequently in later years, when authors are told by publishers what they can and can not print.   Nothing that might harm pharmaceutical companies, oil companies or big business in any way, for sure, and stay away from the politicians and Loyals as well. (sorry Queen Mother).

   Pinocchio's Daring Journey is a "dark ride" (their words, not mine)  at Disneyland in California, Tokyo Disneyland, and Disneyland Park in Paris. Located in the Fantasyland section of each park, this ride is based on Disney's 1940 animated film version of the classic story, which was the studio's second animated feature film.  The attraction tells an abbreviated version of the film, with Pinocchio escaping from Stromboli's circus and visiting "Pleasure Island", ignoring Jiminy Cricket's (Jesus Christ's) advice. Monstro the whale makes an appearance, and Pinocchio is finally reunited with Geppetto and turned into a real boy. Oh, Boy!

   The Disneyland version of the ride was the first Disney parks attraction to use "holographic material", (aka subliminal imaging) which appears on a handheld mirror in the scene where the boys turn into donkeys (Satan) on Pleasure Island (Epstein-land).


  Would you like to read a really funny review of the book?  The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
  tell us: "The first chapter of Pinocchio appeared in the Giornale dei bambini (“Children’s Magazine”) in 1881 and was an immediate success. All of Collodi’s works portray children in a realistic light, imbuing them with mischievous behaviour with which youngsters easily identify."  All of his works portray children in a "realistic light", of "mischievous behavior", with which "children can easily identify"?  If that's not a huge WTF review, then I've never seen one.  Which of our children would be considered "mischievous" when he murdered a fellow creation with a hammer?    What type of sick fucks work at Britannica?  Are they BBC guys and gals?

    This is obviously a story rooted in European paganism.

    There are many, many worthwhile books out there for children – but in my opinion Pinocchio is not one of them. It was only recently that I learned how disturbing, violent, and downright bizarre the story was.   And why is that?  Because I believed the version told by Disney and his manipulators, just as probably all of us did.

However, his is nothing compared to the exposure of violence, sexual deviation, and immorality that we daily expose our kids to through video games, television, and our educational system via  sex education classes and "sensitivity" training.   Children dressing up as drag queens, homophobia hour, how to put a condom on, and the latest computer game version of battling soldiers are cool, hip, and just peachy ok. But a puppet killing the stand in for Jesus Christ with a hammer, well that is OUTRAGEOUSLY INCORRECT, and evidences the work of the people that began this decline of belief so many years ago, and one that has been continued, and even amplified of late.  So if someone asks, "why are we loosing members in Church?," you perhaps may have some suggestions towards that question, close at hand.

So, yes, I'm using this as an analogy to explain my theory that the present indoctrination of the common folk by the PTB did not start recently, and on the contrary has been building for hundreds of years.  Like the words "global warming" and "out of Africa", they become repeated often enough to almost become a jingle in ou minds.   Watch your kids and what they watch. 

And wash your hands of course.   Stay Safe.


----------



## Draco (Sep 29, 2020)

1.Honestly your 100% right pinocchio is dark and based on child abduction and pedophilia but yes Pedophilia is probably gonna be normal for the next 50-70 years and It was actually widely practiced in ancient cultures and a lot of religious figures from all Abraham in religion are pedophiles.
2.And for christianity I’m pretty sure this website showed how the bible was made in the middle ages and that Jesus was based on either Androniko or Julius Caesar so yeah I personally think we’re going from an age to another age the first age being based on religion and the new age being based on science so Yeah the Elites are probably gonna elimate it I don’t think they need religion anymore


----------



## JWW427 (Sep 29, 2020)

The entire Disney empire is linked with alleged pedophilia and satanic abuse/rituals.


----------



## codis (Sep 30, 2020)

Jim Duyer said:


> Pinocchio hung on a tree is an ancient portrayal of crucifixion which typically involved tree imagery (nailed to, tied to, pierced by an arrow below, or hung from). But wait, I haven't told you about that part yet.


I think the specific form has much more in common with Odin, sacrificing himself by hanging from a tree.


----------



## JimDuyer (Sep 30, 2020)

Yes, but Odin hung himself, and upside down.  But yours is a good analogy.


----------



## EUAFU (Oct 1, 2020)

You can't really judge this book on the basis of today's morality. In the past children were not treated as they are today, or as they are supposed to be treated. Just remember how children were treated throughout the 19th century. Remember how they were enslaved in England in coal mines and / or weaving factories, etc.

So it is clear that the world was really more violent than it is today in the middle classes of the industrialized world. Of course, today children in this section of the population are exposed to the violence of games, drawings, but it is violence that means absolutely nothing and does not produce any psychological consequences in the face of the real violence to which children were exposed in the past. Hunger, cold, forced labor, rape, physical violence were the reality.

Just read the authors of the time, French and English or from any other country and we will see what was the luck of the children at the time.

Pinocchio is only the fruit of his time. Disney simply did with Pinocchio what it did with all the stories or books in which he put his hand, transformed the violence into tenderness and pasteurized the moral ambiguities of these books, in fact, the Brothers Grimm did the same with the French tales they collected. Yes, the Grimm tales were actually an understatement of the same tales of French origin.

We actually live in a less violent world than our ancestors, but the violence only seems greater because the population and the information are millions of times greater.

Regarding the author's intention with the book I see a lot of Masonic and mainly Gnostic symbolism.


----------



## codis (Oct 1, 2020)

Jim Duyer said:


> Yes, but Odin hung himself, and upside down. But yours is a good analogy.


BTW, I think I never read the original book either. I think all the Eastern Bloc variants I was exposed to in my childhood were modified as well. There is a Russian/Soviet version from 1976 that was aired quite often.


EUAFU said:


> Yes, the Grimm tales were actually an understatement of the same tales of French origin.


Not sure if you know the Grimm originals. They are not soft and tender either. I have a copy that is about 80 years old, and contains some fairytales that were never ever got a sceen adaption.


EUAFU said:


> Pinocchio is only the fruit of his time. Disney simply did with Pinocchio what it did with all the stories or books in which he put his hand, transformed the violence into tenderness and pasteurized the moral ambiguities of these books, ...


I fully agree to that.


----------



## theflayedlordess (Oct 1, 2020)

Some of us might live in completely Disney-fied nations where childhood (and life in general) is less violent on the surface than in the 19th century, but the strife and ugliness of life revealed in these so-called “Children’s stories” still exists under the MASK of the smiling, happy lie of our 21st century lives. Big thanks to Jim for this excellent post!


----------



## Felix Noille (Oct 1, 2020)

@Jim Duyer  "Blimey!" Corker of a post. ?


----------



## JimDuyer (Oct 1, 2020)

EUAFU said:


> You can't really judge this book on the basis of today's morality. In the past children were not treated as they are today, or as they are supposed to be treated. Just remember how children were treated throughout the 19th century. Remember how they were enslaved in England in coal mines and / or weaving factories, etc.
> 
> So it is clear that the world was really more violent than it is today in the middle classes of the industrialized world. Of course, today children in this section of the population are exposed to the violence of games, drawings, but it is violence that means absolutely nothing and does not produce any psychological consequences in the face of the real violence to which children were exposed in the past. Hunger, cold, forced labor, rape, physical violence were the reality.
> 
> ...


You've made an elegant case for forgiving Disney to some extent .... but your theory does not take into account his intentional inclusion of  Jiminy Cricket in both the Pinocchio work, and his later inclusion of this same theme in several other works.  He knew what those words signified. He included them to increase sales to adults, just as he puts subliminal or partly hidden sexual images in all of his works - to make them more attractive for the late teen or adults /grandparents who accompany the children when they watch his films.  There is no excuse for Disney in my book.

	Post automatically merged: Oct 1, 2020



Felix Noille said:


> @Jim Duyer  "Blimey!" Corker of a post. ?


Thanks, and what's your take on Brittanica?  Satanic stepchild of the BBC or bastard cousin of the Royals?


----------



## Citezenship (Oct 1, 2020)

Jim Duyer said:


> However, his is nothing compared to the exposure of violence, sexual deviation, and immorality that we daily expose our kids to through video games, television, and our educational system via sex education classes and "sensitivity" training. Children dressing up as drag queens, homophobia hour, how to put a condom on, and the latest computer game version of battling soldiers are cool, hip, and just peachy ok. But a puppet killing the stand in for Jesus Christ with a hammer, well that is OUTRAGEOUSLY INCORRECT, and evidences the work of the people that began this decline of belief so many years ago, and one that has been continued, and even amplified of late. So if someone asks, "why are we loosing members in Church?," you perhaps may have some suggestions towards that question, close at hand.


This is a great article, but this paragraph resonates the most with me and our currant shit-uation, it has been postulated elsewhere on this forum that it is work of an AI but i think it is not it, is religious and always has been, the blind faith in our esteemed mask wearing friends and colleagues proves it for me, for it is now a danger to not take part in the illusion, mask of the beast comes to mind and as you say above, i see this as a minced euphemism. I do not like the fear of my own words but i think i am up shits creek because i have no faith.

I think there is only one religion that lays claim to the whole of the earth and all of it's inhabitants(souls) and treasures!

Welcome to the war for the spirit of man, and i am a damn atheist!

Thanks Jim, very enlightening read.


----------



## Felix Noille (Oct 2, 2020)

Jim Duyer said:


> what's your take on Brittanica?



I don't really have much experience of them beyond the door-to-door salesmen who used to come around trying to flog them when I was a child. My Dad bought a set and I used them for my homework. No doubt that with their long established influence they have been infiltrated by the usual suspects.


----------



## Broken Agate (Oct 2, 2020)

Sounds like the Britannica entry was written by someone who never read the book, and assumed it was pretty much like the Disney movie. Sloppy journalism abounds everywhere, so it wouldn't surprise me if someone just didn't bother doing their homework.

OR, it was written by a person who thought that brutal murders, sexual deviancy, mutilation, and getting eaten by a shark were just business as usual for a mischievous golem boy back in the day. 

We act shocked about such topics in kids' books back then, but it's really no worse than the violent, and increasingly more realistic, video games that they are allowed to play now. People will look back on them one day and be amazed that parents were perfectly happy telling these awful stories to their children. I think that this sort of thing happens in every generation, in a variety of ways, to condition children to believe that violence and sexual abuse are okay. As technology progresses, they go from books to television to computer games, and the lessons become more blatant.


----------



## JimDuyer (Oct 3, 2020)

If you liked that one, just stand by - my report on Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory will be uploaded tomorrow morning.


----------



## Broken Agate (Oct 3, 2020)

Oh, good! I never liked that movie as a kid. Wasn't crazy about The Wizard of Oz, either; and now that I know about red shoes, I like it even less.


----------



## Prolix (Oct 3, 2020)

Jim Duyer said:


> But, after all, when you hear about an old man creating something similar to a robot, (News Headline: SILICON LOVERS: Rise of SEX ROBOTS blamed for turning Japanese people into ‘endangered species’ ) and who "wishes upon a star (UFO)" that Pinocchio would become a "real boy", that is of "flesh and blood" as he  was "desirous of a young boy",  then you begin to have some concerns about what is really going on in this story.  Here we have the prototype for sex-dolls, creation by other than God, claims of abuse leading to jail terms, with eventually no charges that stick, and the Pedo relationships of modern times.  Good way to get our grandparents primed for  things to come, right?



The subtext of _A.I. Artificial Intelligence_ (why would a couple want a pre-adolescent boy who never grows up?) probably has more in common with the original _Pinocchio_ than the Disney version it continually references.

I found the 1978 BBC adaptation strikingly disturbing as a child – the donkey transformations in particular – and from looking at a few minutes of it on Daily Motion, I can readily see why (you wouldn’t show a Jan Svankmejer film to kids, after all. At least, I hope not).

The ultra-violence inflicted on Pinocchio brings to mind _Der Struwwlpeter_, a “children’s” book so horrific, I implored my parents to hide it away somewhere (the scene in which the Tailor/Scissorman cuts off Konrad’s thumbs with a pair of giant scissors for the crime of sucking them remains etched in my memory). Disney never considered adapting that one, as far as I know.


----------



## EUAFU (Oct 3, 2020)

Jim Duyer said:


> EUAFU said:
> 
> 
> > You can't really judge this book on the basis of today's morality. In the past children were not treated as they are today, or as they are supposed to be treated. Just remember how children were treated throughout the 19th century. Remember how they were enslaved in England in coal mines and / or weaving factories, etc.
> ...


It was actually just an observation to your topic. Everything you wrote about "talking cricket" is right. As I never read the original book and did not have the patience to watch the cartoon, I only talked about how most children were treated at the time.
And I didn't want to exempt Disney, she removed the violence from the stories she animated, because the time required it. If animation cinema and Disney existed at the beginning and not at the end of the 19th century and animated the film, they probably would not have mitigated any passage in the book.


----------



## Silveryou (Oct 24, 2020)

As an Italian who read the book when was a child (my teacher was the culprit), I can tell that it scared the hell out of me. I think your analysis is very good, but I also think that it is a very educative tale. If you read that when you are a child (not a teenager, in that case you are probably 100% right), you stay a thousand miles away from trouble, because trouble = death... TERRIFYING?


----------



## azura (Nov 12, 2020)

Jim Duyer said:


> I plan on covering Pinocchio in a bit, but first we need some backgroud for my theory.
> 
> The English amateur archaeologist Austen Henry Layard’s excavations at Nimrud, sponsored by the British Ambassador in Istanbul,  followed by his  best-selling book, "Nineveh and its Remains" in 1949,  ignited the European public's excitement in ancient Mesopotamia and a veritable flood of new European excavations followed: J. E. Taylor at Ur and Eridu, Victor Place at Nineveh, William Kenneth Loftus at Uruk and Larsa, Jules Oppert at Kish, and Henry Creswicke Rawlinson at Borsippa.   Interesting items were being uncovered, but what the heck did these scratch marks  on all of these clay tablets mean?
> 
> ...


The first time I saw the Disney version of Pinocchio I got a very negative feeling, was very nauseous and basically on the verge of having a panic attack. It bothered me for weeks afterward because my cousins were just eating it up. The adults in the room thought I was sick and I left the tv room and just hung out with them until my parents came to pick me up. I’ve never watched it again and never will.


----------



## MaziarMohajer (Jan 13, 2022)

Jim Duyer said:


> Yes, but Odin hung himself, and upside down.  But yours is a good analogy.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...venture_di_Pinocchio-pag129.jpg?1642148050315


----------



## alltheleaves (Jan 13, 2022)

Counterpoint to the usual pov.

A seperate thread needs to be started on the history of the age of consent...objectively considering the reason for it being raised well beyond puberty.

The doubter in me just cannot ascribe positive motives to most major changes in the recent centuries.

I saw "man in the street" interviews in the Philipines on yt recently where men and women in their twenties thought the "AOC" should be raised to 21 or even older.

Jewish tradition held and holds that a boy becomes a man at 13. The bar mitzvah ceremony being the turning point.

Delayed adulthood could also mean perpetual infantilisation.


----------

