For years and years, YouTube critics of woke entertainment have suspected that -- and provided some evidence suggesting that -- Disney executives themselves were behind the thousand hit-pieces written by the shill entertainment media trashing fans as "racist," "sexist," and "homophobic," and claiming that every single piece of woke DEIney entertainment is brilliant, and only a "tiny minority" of toxic white supremacists disagreed.

A new quote from an anonymous DEIsney executive, provided to entertainment reporter Matt Belloni, shows that, at the very least, DEIsney executives agree with the media shills branding any critics of DEIsney as Nazis.

All of this started last Thursday when Belloni wrote up a survey noting that DEIsney had fallen from one of the country's most broadly esteemed companies, to one of its most mistrusted and despised.

Bob Iger Has a Brand Problem, But Does It Matter?

An exclusive survey reveals that Americans (and especially Republicans) are twice as likely to think of Disney unfavorably as other media companies, even if that doesn't necessarily mean they won't see Pixar, Star Wars, or other Mouse House movies in theaters.

The rest is paywalled, but the survey found DEIsney's popularity to be among the lowest of all major corporations:

But how big is this problem? And does it actually prevent people from going to see Disney movies? That was the impetus behind a study called "Left and Right: Are Political Divisions Impacting the Box Office?" that was prepared for Puck by The Quorum, which has done other branding research for us. This project surveyed 2,000 people over five days in January to test the conventional wisdom that Republican-leaning audiences feel alienated from Hollywood in general and Disney in particular.
Respondents were presented with 29 companies in various industries (Pepsi, Kraft, Toyota), including 13 media companies (all the major Hollywood studios and a few new entrants like Apple and Amazon, which bring their own general brand profile), and asked if they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of those companies. (They could also answer "no opinion" or "not familiar.")

The results were a bit unexpected. >b?All 29 companies have high favorability ratings (that's consistent with most opinion surveys of major companies), and people actually carry pretty positive feelings about the major studios. But Disney clearly scores the lowest, with 21 percent unfavorable. No other entertainment company had an unfavorable rating above 11 percent, meaning Disney is nearly twice as disliked as any other Hollywood entity we included. (Hulu, which is owned by Disney, scored especially well at only 8 percent unfavorable, indicating the problem is the Disney brand, not any of its sub-brands necessarily.)

Woke DEIsney does not allow its media shills to step out of line and report that their movies are bad and that they're an extremely unpopular company, so a DEIsney executive DM'd Belloni to tell him that when people say they don't like DEIsney movies, they're just saying that they want to see women in "regressive" roles, but are too afraid to say that.

The executive informed Belloni, "Everyone says 'It's the movies, stupid,' which is an easy thing for people to say. More appealing movies are a great way to jump the political issues. But more and more, our audience (or the segment of the audience that has been politicized) equate the perceived messaging in a film as a quality issue."

This executive continued, "They won't say they find female empowerment distasteful in The Marvels or Star Wars [the latest trilogy starring Daisy Ridley], but they will say they don't like those movies because they are 'bad.'"

The executive concluded, "So 'make better movies' becomes code for 'make movies that conform to regressive gender stereotypes or put men front and center in the narrative.' Which is what you're seeing now, and what Bob [Iger]'s pivot is about right now."

As a YouTuber pointed out, no one criticizing DEIsney is afraid to say "we hate woke girlbosses and are sick of seeing men pushed into subordinate roles as cringing servants to the girlboss." It's front-and-center of all critiques: Here's Critical Drinker today announcing that the era of the "girlboss" is over. He points out the problem isn't just that female characters are unbelievably competent and flawless, but that every male character is portrayed as incompetent and venal.

No one is "afraid to say" this. It is said by nearly every critic. They also go on to say that not only are these movies toxic and alienating in their messaging, but they're also objectively bad in all other categories having nothing to do with woke messaging or spiteful feminist politics.

But there you go: A DEIsney executive announcing our movies are great -- It's just the audience that's wrong.

Meanwhile, former DEIsney CFO Jay Rasulo, who is waging a proxy fight to get a seat on DEIsney's board at the upcoming shareholder meeting, says there is something fundamentally broken at the center of DEIsney's "creative" process.

In a video encouraging Disney investors to vote for him and Nelson Peltz to become members of The Walt Disney Company's Board of Directors Rasulo said, "I think something of the most important things to focus on at The Walt Disney Company are: first, and foremost creative content. Something's broken in the creation of creative content."

He continued, "I think from the very start back in the '30s when Walt [Disney] created the first feature animated film it started the Disney flywheel. In fact, Walt invented the Disney flywheel. That you could take something that pleased people in a movie theater, make it into consumer products, ultimately put it into Disneyland as rides and attractions."

"Animation is so key to The Walt Disney Company, so key to the success and the running of the flywheel that to imagine that The Walt Disney Company has lost its iconic status in animation today is almost unbelievable and personally it really affects me because this is how we created success when I was at the company," he concluded.

Is he low-key referencing Film Threat's exposé of the DEI rot at the heart of DEIsney's animation division, in which white men are deliberately given shit assignments to force them to quit to make room for a bunch of highly unqualified female and "diverse" Tumblr doodlers? Make up your own mind but: yes, he is.

Finally, Bob Iger's last shareholder meeting statement, in which he buffaloed investors with a lot of bullshit, was effective. DEIsney's share price rose from something like $92 to $110.

But it might not have just been Bob Iger's unbelievable bullshit that caused the rise -- there is a persuasive case that an army of bots has been assembled to constantly talk up how attractive DEIsney's stock is, and how, allegedly, it is exceeding analyst expectations.

I should point out that even if this is in fact a bot army designed to artificially pump DEIsney's stock price, it isn't necessarily DEIsney behind it -- there are a lot of "Pixie Dusters," DEIsney fanatics, and gay/trans activists that are fighting hard to keep DEIsney as a hard-left propaganda mill. So this could be an effort pushed by the people we already know have an army of bots to attack Gina Carano, for example.