The Wicked of Oz

What we have here is a situation summed up by the sometimes quoted character in James Bond played by Giancarlo Giannini, when he says to Bond:

But I guess when one is young, it seems very easy to distinguish between right and wrong but as one gets older, it becomes more difficult – the villains and the heroes get all mixed up.

In particular, those once seen as heroes [e.g. GHW Bush] turn out to be villains, we see people on our side eulogising these villains and know it is wrong.

David Thompson is one whom N.O. likes, among others, he has a post on Oz and he mocks a Guardian writer, something I also do, in order to write a mocking piece about leftism following that.

It says so here, in the Guardian. Specifically,

Oz is first wondrous and revelatory, then sinister and suspect, a good trip that goes wrong… It’s this lurking inner wrongness, the darkness at its edges and the emptiness at its core, that speaks to me now. 

The author of the above is Bidisha, a mono-named entity who may be familiar to long-term readers, and who describes herself, unironically, as a “non-white angry political female.” One who seems determined to find yet another staple of Christmas both ghastly and problematic.

The only problem, the pesky issue is, that in that specific case of Oz, David T is wrong and Madame Whatever happens to be right. Do not underestimate the female capacity to ‘feel’ wrong when it’s present. She might not be able to say why and might revert to typical Guardian reasons but she was not wrong to get a bad vibe from Oz, not wrong at all.

Oz is wrong on many levels, of which these are two:

1. It is an occult paeon, the symbolism is occult and it was used by MK Ultra and trauma mind-splitting as triggers. There are many tortured souls who have no love whatever for this film while children unknowingly watch it at Xmas time. it is an occult joke on innocence.

2. It destroyed a young girl who became an alcoholic junkie and spread misery herself in her later years. The munchkins in the film were responsible, off-set, for sexual assault on Judy Garland. There’s a very nasty, Chucky-like sense to the whole Oz project, with actual harm occasioned to the vulnerable.

There are so many sources on this. Here is one:

L. Frank Baum, the author of the Wizard of Oz was a member of the Theosophical Society, which is an organization based on occult research and the comparative study of religions. Baum had a deep understanding of Theosophy and, consciously or not, created an allegory of Theosophic teachings when he wrote the Wizard of Oz.

Theosophy also gave rise to the Lucifer Trust and Planned Parenthood [indirectly]. The aim is destruction of society, it underlies the current woes out there, the breaking up of family life and the loss of wholesome values to society.

The three declared objects of the original Theosophical Society as established by Blavatsky, Judge and Olcott (its founders) were as follows:

“First — To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color.
Second — To encourage the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy, and Science.
Third — To investigate the unexplained laws of Nature and the powers latent in man.”
-The Theosophist, vol 75, No 6

Nasty. Very nasty. When I think of Oz, I think of the screams of the tortured strapped into chairs in clinical rooms, having things done to them with the aid of chemicals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.