The intention of this post is not to incite violence so hopefully, no one will report what is intrinsically and satirically a philosophical discussion.
Disney Villains have long been painted as narcissistic or sociopathic characters, and thus deserving of pity but not empathy.
But it’s my conjecture that Disney villains were always heading in the right direction, that is, progressive in socialist, communist, and anarchist policies.
They took a misturn, and lost the battle, like all great pioneers do. But in contrast, Disney heroes, princesses, and beautifully drawn protagonists were always preserving what was a self-serving and sometimes evil institution that glorified an elite, not a populace.
Disney oligarchies can be demonstrated by simply contrasting the villains with the worlds they inhabited.
Mad Madam Mim vs.the Patriarchy
Mad Madam Mim was painted as a lunatic witch, when she is a parable of strong feminism and patriarchal resistance. That she fights an old white wizard and his successor Wart, is a reminder that her kind is never allowed to play with the boys.
She is treated as a terrorist, not because of anything she does in her solitude, but because she resists surrendering to the will of men who are dominant in this society.
Perhaps Mad Madam Mim’s flaw was that she went mad and indiscriminately murderous, rather than holding it together and fighting what was a boy’s club and a society that (since it was Middle Ages) presumably looked down on over-achieving women, perhaps even viewing them as demonic because of their ambitions.
Magica de Spell vs. Capitalism
Magica de Spell was very obviously an anti-capitalist since she warred against Scrooge McDuck, the most blatant capitalist cartoon character ever invented – to the point where his absurd wealth was comical and endearing, in that bizarre “what were they thinking” 1980s mentality.
That Scrooge and Flintheart Glomgold were often fighting moral battles while indulging in riches, oblivious of the middle class, is a fitting metaphor to those who have lost faith in bipartisan politics today.
Magica de Spell saw capitalism as the problem. She lost her way when attempting to claim all the wealth herself – a very appropriate fate, considering how libertarians remain stubbornly capitalist because “you never know…someday good things might happen.”
Scar vs. Religion
It took me years to figure out that Scar the Lion was a symbol of sacrilege, an antagonist not only to Simba and Mufasa but to a theocracy of lions and monarchs who had some sort of divine right to rule.
Simba and Mufasa had an unbreakable bond, their heirs chosen by a mystical surrogate god – those who resisted to accept the label of “apostate” and “blasphemer” to the established order. Tradition, unbreakable religious adherence to an old world.
Scar’s other sin, besides resisting Simba’s holy anointed title, was his audacity in introducing inherently “evil” creatures into a divine land, like hyenas. An inferior species that could never be redeemed, proving Mufasa’s fascism.
Now don’t get me wrong. Despite Disney’s best attempt to SHOW Scar as an unlikable villain, making him “royal” and with hauteur (which some mistook for gay) Scar actually did lose his way, as many populists do.
He surrendered to his own narcissistic and sexual impulses, driven by power and a lust for control – not fully realizing the great responsibility that lies with revolutionaries to actually replace the broken system with something that works for the benefit of the people.
Ice King vs. Celebrity Excess
Finally, there’s Ice King, and yes, I know he’s not a Disney villain. To be technically accurate, I could replace Ice King with Ursula or Kaa.
But to Hell with it.
When I first saw Ice King, on the brilliant show Adventure Time, I mistook him as merely a sociopathic madman. Someone who was made a criminal by madness.
But there’s something to read in between the lines.
He doesn’t just kidnap women – he kidnaps “princesses” or Royals. The elite, the monarchs, the ones chosen to lead by divine right or by an autocratic government where the strong control the weak.
Is he actually conscious of his latent contempt for authority and for wealthy, famous people who are more or less Kardashian-esque celebrities by Ooh’s reckoning?
Or does he represent an incel or a socially-awkward type who can’t hold a conversation with the elite and thus becomes an outsider?
Maybe. Or maybe he’s just gone mad and “eating the rich” is just an animalistic devolution of a once wise man with dangerous opinions.
Is surrendering to violent impulses how we lose or how we win?
The heroes have an answer for that. So do the villains. I don’t advocate anything. I ask questions. And I will always be an evolving Leftist, believing in something in between Good & Evil.
But in cartoons, my heart has always been tied to cartoon villains. Truth is usually more complicated than the one-sided truths that winners report to us. Truth is written by the victors.
If not for our ability to read both sides of a story, we would never have learned the truth about Columbus, Thomas Edison, and all the U.S. presidents that did horrendous things.
Sometimes to understand a story or a bit of history completely, one has to keep an open mind.
I wrote my cartoon book novel series mainly about villains, with heroes as the backdrop.
It would be kind of ridiculous for me to avoid politics on this page, as my book is all about politics, religion, and philosophy under the guise of comedy and fantasy.
But to keep things interesting, I am going to only post periodically when a bit of artwork inspires me to write a micro-essay.
I think all the other pages do a fine job of posting memes that are changing society and making people think about social issues.
I am just an onlooker and a storyteller.
Imagine maniacal laughter here.