From Target’s 2023 Pride Month merchandise, to Bud Light’s disastrous collaboration with Dylan Mulvaney, to Cracker Barrel’s 2025 logo modernization, “go woke, go broke” has repeatedly been proven true.
But does that mean the progressive propaganda failed?
According to BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre, it’s not that simple.
“Even though much of the woke content was very cringe and often failed financially, what if it had a bigger impact on us socially?” he asks.
On a recent episode of “The Auron MacIntyre Show,” Auron and his guest, social scientist and online political commentator Aydin Paladin, discussed this query.
Auron explains that many conservatives dismissed the woke movement on the premise that “the marketplace wins.”
“People will vote with their dollars; they’ll vote with their attention, and companies will be forced to respond to financial incentives. And so, even if there’s some kooky message getting cooked up by the progressive left in Hollywood, ultimately, once that fails, they’ll have to come back to good old-fashioned, slightly less subversive media narratives,” he says, explaining the thinking of people who assumed that wokeness had a short shelf life.
While wokeness did largely fail in a financial sense, it succeeded in other ways, Paladin says.
In her recent video “The Disturbing Psychology of Hollywood’s Moral Collapse,” she argued that Hollywood and related entertainment spent over a decade pushing progressive messaging and produced many commercial failures, and that audiences rejected a lot of the most overtly “woke” films and games — yet many of the underlying ideas still became normalized in the broader culture through narrative persuasion.
“When you talk about funding from big companies like Disney, from companies like Black Rock that back up these media entertainment companies, well, at the end of the day, it didn’t really matter whether or not it succeeded financially,” she tells Auron. “Little nuggets of information could have ended up in people’s minds permanently anyway. It’s way harder to forget something that you’ve already learned.”
“People want the world explained to them. They can’t experience everything around them,” Auron says.
When it comes to topics like sexuality, race, and even history, “whoever gets to set the frame of the discussion ... gets to define it going forward,” he explains.
Hollywood, he and Paladin argue, filled that role of being the first to introduce certain topics. Its decade-long push of progressive messaging in entertainment succeeded in making certain ideas feel like ordinary background assumptions, even when the individual films and shows flopped commercially.
Paladin gives the example of the late-90s/early-2000s sitcom “Will and Grace.”
“There’s been significant research that’s been done on people’s attitudes towards homosexuals and lesbians and their exposure to ‘Will and Grace’ because that was kind of the first big show where there was gay representation on TV where it wasn’t supposed to be inherently negative,” she says.
“If that’s your first exposure [to homosexuality] and it’s a positive exposure, well, then you’re going to be more likely to maintain that positive attitude towards [homosexuals], and the same thing happens with information.”
To hear the full conversation, watch the episode above.
Want more from Auron MacIntyre?To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist's commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
I believe Arizona State University has taken the first step toward terminating me, a tenured Christian professor, for being too Christian.
You might think tenure would protect a professor from religious discrimination by state university administrators. You would be mistaken. What I am experiencing at ASU demonstrates how university administrators can use the annual review process to punish professors for their beliefs and potentially build a case for terminating them.
This is harassment, and I believe it amounts to religious discrimination. It also sends a warning to every Christian professor at a public university.
Here is what is happening.
I am currently engaged in a lawsuit against ASU over its DEI training requirements. After more than two years of litigation, my attorneys argued before the Arizona Supreme Court on September 1. We are awaiting the court's decision.
This week, ASU’s provost has officially upheld a decision penalizing me for allegedly being too Christian in my classes.
In May, the dean of my college deducted points from my annual performance review and reduced merit pay because he claimed my teaching in 2025 was too Christian. What evidence did he offer for this remarkable accusation? Five quiz questions out of more than 80, along with two negative student evaluations.
That's it.
This is no longer merely one dean's judgment. ASU's senior administration has now endorsed the decision to penalize me for allegedly teaching classes that are too Christian. I have no further avenue of appeal within that process.
I have spent my career teaching students how to think. My administrators now seem determined to teach me what not to think. One wonders which of us has misunderstood the purpose of a university.
And the evidence? Let's examine it.
One question asks, "Why is knowing God the highest good?"
Is that uniquely Christian? Plato and Aristotle, neither of whom were Christians last I checked, explored the relationship between the divine, knowledge, and the highest good. Eastern philosophers have done the same. These questions have occupied philosophers for thousands of years.
Another asks, "What is the relationship between God and morality?"
Again, this is a foundational question in the history of philosophy. Plato raised it in the "Euthyphro." Aristotle connected ethics with his account of the highest good and the divine. Are we now supposed to eliminate questions about God and morality from philosophy courses?
RELATED: A Christian guide to trolling without sinning
Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images
A third question states, "True or False: Death should not make us think about the meaning of life." This is a question from my class on the philosophical aspects of death and dying. It is a course I developed with ASU’s online specialists as part of master teacher training. ASU signed off on the class and then penalized me for teaching it!
The relationship between death and life's meaning is central to existential philosophy, including the writings of Viktor Frankl (not a Christian). Surely students studying philosophy should be allowed to consider how death relates to meaning in life.
These are philosophical questions, not evidence that I am improperly promoting Christianity.
One student wrote: "If I were a Hindu or Buddhist, and truly believed in reincarnation, I would be offended if I were asked to denounce it."
But I never asked that student, or anyone else, to denounce reincarnation, and the student gave no evidence that I did. Notice the hypothetical nature of the complaint: If I were a Hindu or Buddhist, and if I were asked to denounce my beliefs, I would be offended.
The student did not report that this actually happened.
The second student wrote: "Although I agree with what Owen Anderson teaches, I completely understand if people feel offended after taking his class."
Read that again. The student agrees with what I teach but imagines that someone else might be offended.
Apparently, at ASU, hypothetical offense by hypothetical students is sufficient grounds to penalize an actual professor. And this brings us to the larger problem.
Annual performance reviews are recurring evaluations. Once administrators officially determine that a professor's teaching is deficient because it is too Christian, what happens at the next review? I will be asked what steps I took to stop being so Christian? If administrators decide I have not adequately corrected the alleged problem, they can penalize me again. Repeated negative evaluations could then become the foundation for escalating disciplinary action.
That is how ASU could build a case for terminating a tenured professor.
RELATED: Campus free speech is alive — barely
Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images
And consider the burden this imposes. Rather than spending my time exclusively on teaching, research, and serving students, I must defend myself against accusations supported by a handful of philosophical questions and speculative complaints. Are the non-Christian professors put through this same scrutiny and additional burden?
This is harassment, and I believe it amounts to religious discrimination. It also sends a warning to every Christian professor at a public university.
If you discuss God, morality, eternity, or the meaning of life, administrators can apparently decide your teaching is too Christian. Can they then deduct points from your annual review? Deny you merit pay? Can they begin documenting supposed deficiencies that might eventually threaten your employment?
The chilling effect is obvious. Christian professors may decide that silence is safer than risking administrative punishment.
I have spent more than two decades teaching philosophy at ASU. I believe students deserve to encounter the great questions of philosophy, including the questions about God that philosophers have discussed since antiquity.
A public university should encourage those questions, not punish professors for asking them. ASU receives public funding, including federal money. It should not be permitted to use its administrative power to discriminate against Christian faculty.
Today, the accusation is that my classes are too Christian. Tomorrow, the question may be whether I am allowed to remain a professor at all. And if ASU can do this to me, what prevents other public universities from doing the same to Christian professors across America?
On “The Alex Marlow Show,” host and Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow talked about Ilhan Omar. Marlow said, “Ilhan Omar, or is that her real name? might not be her real name because we are learning now that she had perhaps
The post Breakdown: Evidence Mounts Against ‘Ilhan Omar’ appeared first on Breitbart.
On “The Alex Marlow Show,” Matt Towery talked about polls. Towery said, “When you’re polling in a midterm, you’re really having to guess who’s going to show up at the polls, and that’s been very very difficult. ” The Alex
The post Famed Pollster: You Should Not Believe What You’re Being Told About This Election appeared first on Breitbart.
On “The Alex Marlow Show,” host and Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow talked about Lindsey Graham. Marlow said, “It’s gay-bashing. It’s flat-out.” The Alex Marlow Show, hosted by Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow, broadcasts coast to coast on weekdays from noon to
The post October Surprise? ‘Progressive’ Democrats Gay-Bash Lindsey Graham (Who Is Dead) appeared first on Breitbart.
On “The Alex Marlow Show,” Justin Folk talked about Israel’s pager operation. Folk said, “It’s an incredible military spy story, and it really goes down in history as one of the most incredible spy operations and military turnarounds ” The Alex Marlow
The post ‘What Is a Woman’ Director Returns with New Documentary ‘Paging Hezbollah’ appeared first on Breitbart.