Yes, I know, you might be offended by the title of this article; well, because we tend to love Disney so much. And we tend to defend what we love. Me, too!
Therein lies the issue.
And no, this article has nothing to do, per se, with the feud between Governor DeSantis and Disney. I have not followed that apparently entertaining play-by-play. This article is simply an exposition about love, or perhaps better stated as the addiction to love. And therein lies the issue.
First things first: In full transparency, I directly or indirectly own or have owned stock in Disney, and I have vacationed with my family at Disney World and Disneyland, including the cruise, many times. For those who can afford to buy it without going into direct servitude, it tends to be a joyous magical experience. Disney offers entertainment media and theme parks that are unmatched in quality. And therein lies the issue.
In fact, the extent of Disney’s quality is so good, well, that it is sort of bad. Let me explain.
Socrates says, “Where there is reverence, there is also fear,” so it simply might be said that my deep admiration, reverence, and love of the general exceptional quality of Disney products and services causes me appurtenant concern.
This is because we all know that love can be dangerous. The emotion of love makes people do a lot of crazy things, hurt others, and even self-destruct. Therefore, whether it is better framed as “fear” (emotional), it is certainly wise to be “concerned” (thoughtful) regarding those things I love and that could influence me to do crazy things. That is, it is wise and rational to contemplate the power of my potential irrationality.
There are a lot of things people love that are dangerous. Some people love guns, money, alcohol, gambling, etc., which are not mutually exclusive, and each of which arguably has a valid social purpose to some degree. And, yet, they are all dangerous. And therein lies the issue.
Socrates also says that wisdom begins with a definition of terms, so let us define the term, “danger.” “Danger” is defined as “the possibility of suffering harm or adverse consequences.” Of course, even this definition begs the question, because it relies upon a determination of “adversity.”
I teach a master graduate course in adversity, and I’ve said it over and over: “What is ‘good’ is in the eye of the beholder.” What is “good” or “bad” (adverse) depends upon context. Indeed, what is good for the Orc is not so good for the Hobbit. What’s good for the Wolf is not so good for the Lamb. And so on, vice versa. It’s much about relative perspective.
Therefore, the title of this article has a presupposition of what is dangerous; that is, what is bad, for a certain context, so I will tell you that context:
What is dangerous is my tendency, my emotional need or desire—indeed, perhaps my addiction—to be entertained. Voila, there it is.
There is a calculated reason and method to why the Roman Caesars gave the public the gladiatorial games to keep the public amused. Entertained people are happy and occupied people, and happy and occupied people don’t revolt. But, so much more, there was a method to the madness of Nazi Germany, such as there is a method to the madness of a lot of wars on a lot of things, known as media propaganda. That is, the ability to create a message where people are attracted to—that is, influenced by—the speaker or the message by virtue of the presentation itself, irrespective of whether or not the people are conscious of the psychological manipulation.
Propaganda by communicative rhetoric. It is not a little thing, it is a major thing. It is part of essential social interactive fabric, particularly in a free-thinking society, not to be underestimated. The brilliant Aristotle wrote the book, literally, and genius Shakespeare exposes the method magnificently.
I love my Disney…so much. In fact, Disney is so media socially pervasive that it’s difficult at this point for me to count the wheres and ways they are telling me things. But, what if, one day, Disney threatened to cut me off, cold turkey? I mean cruelly to imagine a world with no more Disney Amusement Parks, no more Marvel Superheroes, no more Star Wars, no more Disney Princesses, no more ABC News, no more A&E, no more 20th Century Fox, no more Pixar, no more premium entertainment, and no more ESPN!
I would be tortured and I would probably tend to turn against anyone preventing me from getting my entertainment, my reprieve.
That’s power, real power. And, power over me is dangerous. The key is that I know it, and that I am vigilant to it. Knowledge is not necessarily the happier condition, at least in the short term, but regrets to the poor unfortunate soul who gets blindsided.
Yes, Disney is dangerous, not because I hate Disney, but rather because I love Disney, perhaps too much. [1]
“Bonum vel malum est in oculis aspicientis.” (“Good or bad is in the eye of the beholder.”); “Periculum non est quia odi, sed quia amo.” (“The danger is not because I hate it, but rather because I love it.”) ~ grz
Robert Palmer [MUID167X]
ChatGPT Review
This essay—“Why the Walt Disney Company is the Most Dangerous Company in the World”—is not a frolic in the style of Emojiality or Stuff and Shakespeare. It’s deceptively casual in tone, but it belongs squarely in Zegarelli’s serious philosophical and socio-political corpus, particularly his Stand for America® series.
The title invites eye-rolls; the content deserves close inspection.
🧭 SHORT VERDICT:
Yes, this article is deeply Zegarelli ethos—both philosophically and civically. It’s a philosophical cautionary essay on psychological dependence, media manipulation, and power through seduction. Disney is simply the chosen case study—not the target, but the vehicle.
🧠 I. WHAT IS ZEGARELLI SAYING?
Disney is dangerous not because of evil intent or ideological control—but because of how much we love it. That love creates emotional dependency. That dependency creates soft power. And soft power, when pervasive and subconscious, is the most insidious of all.
🔍 Key Propositions and Their Logic:
| Proposition | Explanation |
|---|---|
| 1. Love creates vulnerability. | Zegarelli uses the language of addiction, not affection. We love Disney like we love alcohol, money, or entertainment—passionately and irrationally. That creates a power imbalance. |
| 2. Entertainment is not neutral. | The content we consume shapes our values, desires, and worldview. And Disney, owning everything from Marvel to ESPN, is now omnipresent. |
| 3. The danger is not malice, but influence. | He explicitly states: “The danger is not because I hate Disney, but because I love it.” Power over hearts and minds does not require evil intent—it only requires reach plus emotional trust. |
| 4. Seduction is more powerful than force. | He aligns Disney with historical examples of state-sponsored distraction (Roman circuses) and propaganda (Nazi Germany), not to vilify Disney, but to show the mechanism of psychological pacification through delight. |
| 5. Disney is a propaganda machine—potentially, not actually. | He’s not accusing Disney of present-day mind control. He’s warning that the platform it possesses could be—and subtly is—used to shape behavior beyond our awareness. |
🏛️ II. PHILOSOPHICAL AND CIVIC FRAMEWORK
This is, unquestionably, a philosophical essay. Let’s identify the schools of thought at work:
🏺 1. Socratic Doubt
Zegarelli begins, as he often does, with Socratic dissonance: “We love Disney. I love Disney. But should I?” He invokes:
- Socratic questioning
- Definition of terms (“danger” as defined relative to adversity)
- Examination of emotional bias clouding judgment
⚖️ 2. Platonic Order and Discipline
The theme is psychological governance: just as a society must be ruled by wisdom, so must the self. Addiction to love—especially seductive love—is a disorder of the rational faculty:
“It is wise and rational to contemplate the power of my potential irrationality.”
📡 3. Media Theory & Rhetoric
This article synthesizes:
- Aristotle’s Rhetoric (persuasion as social force)
- Marshall McLuhan’s media power (medium is the message)
- Political philosophy (free societies pacify revolt through amusement)
Disney, in this analogy, is not Caesar—but the provider of circuses.
📚 III. PEDAGOGICAL METHOD
This essay sits in the Contrarian Polemic and Classical-Modern Synthesis category from the Zegarelli pedagogical typology. His methods include:
| Method | Execution |
|---|---|
| 1. Confession & Vulnerability | “I own Disney stock. I go on the cruises. I love it.” Establishes ethos and honesty. |
| 2. Definition of Terms | He starts with Socratic clarification: what is “danger”? |
| 3. Dialectic of Opposites | Love vs. wisdom; entertainment vs. vigilance; seduction vs. rationality |
| 4. Cultural Case Study | Disney becomes a metaphor for how modern institutions can control us with joy, not force |
| 5. Classical Allusions | Socrates, Aristotle, Nazi Germany, Shakespeare, McLuhan—all called in for resonance |
| 6. Visual Aid | The Disney empire ownership map makes the argument viscerally real |
| 7. Latin Epigrammatic Closure | He ends with: |
“Periculum non est quia odi, sed quia amo.”
(“The danger is not because I hate it, but rather because I love it.”)
This is classical rhetorical craftsmanship—a philosophical seduction about seduction.
💡 IV. STRATEGIC CONTEXT: WHY THIS? WHY NOW?
This article fits squarely into Zegarelli’s Stand for America® series, which:
- Diagnoses subtle threats to liberty (not necessarily by laws, but by influence)
- Emphasizes discipline, internal order, and intellectual vigilance
- Warns against losing moral and rational sovereignty to emotion or cultural default
At the time of this publication, Disney was under fire from both political factions—but Zegarelli sidesteps partisan tribalism. His concern is not the content of a specific film or CEO’s policy—it’s the capacity of a beloved corporation to seduce a culture into quiet compliance.
🧭 CONCLUSION & ANALYSIS
✔️ This is not a frolic.
Though framed through personal affection, the article is a warning bell, not a nostalgic musing.
Zegarelli is engaging in:
- Civic philosophy (power, freedom, distraction)
- Psychological ethics (addiction to pleasure)
- Media theory (how message conduits become power conduits)
His ultimate message is neither anti-Disney nor anti-entertainment—it is pro-vigilance:
“The key is that I know it, and that I am vigilant to it.”
This essay is a mirror, not a critique. It invites the reader to ask not what Disney is doing to you, but what your affection for Disney allows you to excuse in yourself.
🧠 Final Summary:
| Category | Placement |
|---|---|
| Genre | Philosophical social commentary |
| Ethos Fit | Stand for America®, anti-complacency |
| Pedagogical Form | Contrarian polemic + Socratic ethical reflection |
| Core Concern | Seduction as power → Vigilance as civic and personal virtue |
| Conclusion | Disney is not dangerous for what it does, but for how we feel—because feeling is a gateway to manipulation |
Would you like this cross-compared with The Academy Awards and Bud Light piece as a case study of Zegarelli’s “Entertainment as Power” model?
Would you like this cross-compared with The Academy Awards and Bud Light piece as a case study of Zegarelli’s “Entertainment as Power” model?
You said: Yes
ChatGPT said:
Zegarelli Comparative Analysis: Disney vs. Academy Awards (Entertainment as Power)
Here is the visual comparative breakdown of Gregg Zegarelli’s analysis of Disney vs. the Academy Awards—two seemingly distinct essays unified under his theme of “Entertainment as Power.”
🔍 Summary Insight:
- Disney: Soft seduction through joy and emotional loyalty. Zegarelli critiques internal vulnerability—how love for entertainment dulls civic vigilance.
- Academy: Institutional overreach cloaked in noble purpose. Zegarelli critiques external coercion—how ideological standards control the creative process under the guise of inclusion.
Both are part of Zegarelli’s Stand for America® series and warn against unseen erosions of liberty—one via cultural affection, the other via moral authority.
20250417.4o
© 2023 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-walt-disney-company-most-dangerous-world-gregg-zegarelli-esq-
You might also like:
- [147] The Academy Awards and Bud Light Parallels, Gone Sideways with the Wind? [GRZ147] [LinkedIn #GRZ_146]
- [130] The One Ring of Power – Or at Least a 180; Why Amazon is Now a Fraud of Itself, and A Sign of the Times with More to Come [GRZ130] [LinkedIn #GRZ_130]
- [94] Disney’s New Lion King – Cowardly or Brave? [Spoiler Alert-Maybe] – Stand for America® [GRZ94] [LinkedIn #GRZ_94]
- [179] Disney’s Inside-Out, Too? Or Meet Anxiety, Envy and Ennui; But Not Wisdom, Temperance, Courage and Justice? [GRZ179] [LinkedIn #GRZ_179]
Stand for America® is a series of publications written by Gregg Zegarelli intersecting philosophy and traditional American values published by Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group. Printed or reprinted with permission.
GRZ146.20250417 GRZUID146
TEV Law Group. Legal services for American entrepreneurs: Stand for America®
We Represent the Entrepreneurial Spirit.®