Not so long ago, MuslimSkeptic published an article on the LGBT agenda of Disney.
The influential media conglomerate declared that LGBT characters would “account for at least 50 percent of its regular characters by the end of the year.” These are shows and movies aimed at children, by the way.
But it seems that this plan is now meeting heavy resistance: Ron DeSantis, Florida’s governor, the state where Disney’s famous entertainment resort complex is situated, has now revoked Disney’s self-governing status in the state, which has many heavy consequences for Disney, including economic ones.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has asked lawmakers in that state to consider the “termination” of self-governing privileges that Disney World has held in the Orlando area for 55 years. According to The Washington Post, such a decision could leave Disney paying millions of dollars more a year in local taxes, and with less autonomy over its property.
The withdrawal of Disney’s longstanding privileges in Florida is widely seen as a retaliation against the entertainment giant’s–eventual–resistance and criticism of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. In early March, Disney CEO Bob Chapek was heavily criticized, both within the company and by the public, for not having clearer opposition. By late March, Disney employees walked out in protest, while Hulu, Disney+, FX, ESPN, and Walt Disney World have released statements that denounce the bill.
After months of silence on the legislation, however, Chapek promised the company would fight to repeal the law, which bans instruction or classroom discussion of “sexual orientation or gender identity” for kindergarteners through third-graders in public schools. In response, DeSantis called Disney a “woke corporation” that “inject[s] a lot of these topics into programming for very young kids.”
The New York Times wrote about the wider consequences for “corporate America”:
Disney’s clash with Florida is the latest example of how companies’ growing willingness to speak out on social and political issues puts them in conflict with some lawmakers. Last year, Georgia politicians threatened to raise taxes on Delta after the airline spoke out against the state’s restrictive voting laws. More recently, Texas lawmakers have said they would bar Citigroup from underwriting the state’s bonds unless the bank revoked its policy to pay for employees to travel out of state for abortions, which are severely restricted there.
Let’s look at this trend which transcends the case of Disney alone, that of “woke capitalism.”
Why Big Business Favors Wokism
Woke Capitalism is the title of a 2021 book by Carl Rhodes, an Australian university teacher.
The book was published by the Bristol University Press, so it has its “academic” certification. This is important to note because the most popular book on woke capitalism, Stephen Soukup’s The Dictatorship of Woke Capital, released in 2020, is more polemical and less intellectually rigorous (and it also happens to be very popular with American conservatives).
So, why are these corporate titans so much in favor of the woke ideology? For Rhodes, it might just be a marketing stunt: by supporting “humanistic” projects associated with the Left, such as fighting racial inequality, they hide their own characteristics associated with a certain Right, that of enforced economic inequality associated with the capitalist system.
Rhodes writes in p. 15:
Woke capitalism is an attempt to break the compromise between corporate moral legitimacy and capitalist inequality. Part and parcel of this is the removal of the distinction between the private interests of business and the public interests of the democratic state, such that business can simply appropriate political power for its own purposes.
He continues in pp. 43-44 on how, through wokism, big corporations in fact sneakily involve themselves into politics:
[Ross] Douthat submitted that corporations were engaging in a ‘performative wokeness’. By this, he meant that corporations were using woke causes to manipulate the political system in their own favour. Going woke was a much subtler strategy than direct corporate lobbying. It involved becoming associated with progressive and left-activist political and social causes so that governments would be less likely to increase taxes or force regulation on the corporations themselves (…) what he foresaw was how corporations were using their significant financial and cultural power to weigh in on political issues.
(…)
What this means is that woke capitalism is not just about corporations behaving like do-gooding snowflake lefties. Instead, they are playing hardball by working to seize political power from the institutions of democracy.
The author then gives different examples of these big corporations embracing wokism, such as that of Nike standing with Colin Kaepernick, who protested again racial inequality and police brutality, or Gillette and its “toxic masculinity” ad, as a response to the #MeToo movement.
RELATED: The Curious Case of the MeToo Mufti: Abdullah Nana
But we can now make sense of woke capitalism: By embracing Leftist talking points, big corporations hide their brutal capitalist exploitation and also have a free avenue to directly influence politics, something big business used to do less openly (such as lobbying major politicians).
In fact, a well-circulated meme summarizes the whole issue well:
AsSalamu Alaikum,
Typo Notification :
Found under the heading, “Why Big Business Favors Wokism” :
The author then gives different examples of these big corporations embracing wokism, such as that of Nike standing with Colin Kaepernick, who protested *again* [supposed to be against] racial inequality and police brutality, or Gillette and its “toxic masculinity” ad, as a response to the #MeToo movement.
—
Please Check.
The purpose of the large multinational corporations in supporting all these degenerate causes that destroy the traditional family is to create a society of frustrated people who will seek to alleviate their frustrations in consumerism, as is otherwise seen today. When, for example, big capital supports feminism, in addition to destroying the family and leading to the situation that I described above, it is also for the simple reason that there are a few million more labor available and thus they