HENRY McCULLOCH writes:

I am more than usually disappointed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s veto of the “religious liberty” bill.  I had believed that  Brewer was a woman of principle who would not be buffaloed.  Not so, I guess.

In this episode, the disgraceful threatening of Arizona by corporations (“American” Airlines, AT&T, Marriott, Delta, Verizon, Apple, Intel) is another low in American social-political life.  It is also further evidence that the cultural-revolutionary elite that is the enemy of civilization extends far beyond the targets conservatives usually criticize — government, academia, media, entertainment — into things most people still instinctively think of as conservative: business, the military, organized religion.  Those of us who follow the immigration wars know that, but most people still don’t.  We should publicize, as best we can, the role of big businesses in this cultural subversion.  Another good example is the Coca-Cola Company’s Super Bowl ad, with the U.S. national anthem ostentatiously sung in a myriad of languages other than English by a host of people who are visibly not American.  These are all insults to actual Americans, but we seem to have had the ability to take justified offense bred out of us.

Why was corporate America so strongly behind the veto?

One excuse American Airlines gave was that the company feared its employees would be discriminated against in Arizona.  That’s a tacit admission of what most passengers have long suspected: male flight attendants, who have become much more numerous in recent decades, are heavily of homosexual inclination if not practice.  And, through their unions, probably also inclined to be noisily angry should the company not oppose Arizona’s presumed violation of “gay rights.”

Another possible reason is that U.S. corporations are often very dependent on U.S. government contracts (I should think that would be true of AA) and want to be in line with whatever the feds’ line is at the moment.  And, in the specific case of the airlines — although it’s true of other industries as well — their business is minutely regulated by the feds.  Under current management, the U.S. government is militantly pro-sodomy, with no effective political counterweight to that slant.  Best to get on the bandwagon in the hope of being left alone?

Yet another is all-pervasive liberalism: these corporations’ directors and exectives have probably absorbed the reigning ideology of equalitarianism — without much thought — and find any distinction such as Arizona was attempting to make abhorrent if not inexplicable.  That is not a rational position, but in post-America as long as you lean Left you don’t owe anybody a rational explanation.

One more thought is that the homosexualist lobby is absolutely unrelenting and more than willing to slander any opponents, actual or perceived, and that corporate executives fear the negative publicity of being branded “homophobes” by homosexualist extremists who, while they are in fact extremist, are increasingly viewed as mainstream advocates of a reasonable and compassionate position.  Indeed, they have succeeded to an extraordinary degree in turning tolerance — nay, acceptance and even affirmation — of sodomy into a civil rights issue.  What this says about the weak-mindedness of most Americans is something I would rather not think about.  Certainly, they got to Jan Brewer, who surely should know better.

To my eye, and I’m straying into thoughtcrime here, the homosexualist lobby greatly resembles the (non-existent, of course) Jewish lobby in determination and relentlessness — and, given the bitchiness that often characterizes men of that inclination, is probably nastier in its willingness to resort to character assassination of opponents, including false allegations that opponents are really just self-hating “closeted” homosexuals themselves.  That seems contradictory, but the homosexualists surely realize that normal men and women don’t relish being accused of being perverts.  I don’t think the resemblance between the lobbies is entirely coincidental: as with every Leftist movement I can think of, Jews are disproportionately involved and grossly disproportionately so among the leaders and ideologues.  That’s a phenomenon that goes back at least to the late Harvey Milk and probably long before.

I suppose the short answer is that it’s just easier to pander to the homosexualists and avoid the risk of becoming a target for abuse and possibly boycotts.

Just as one doesn’t become an admiral or general today by standing firm on traditional principles, neither does one become the CEO of a multinational corporation without having a conveniently flexible conscience.

 —- Comments —-

Sean writes:

It’s getting to the point where if I was seriously keeping a list of all the companies I would have to boycott for espousing an anti-American and especially an anti-Christian view (Jews and Muslims are still kosher and halal) that there would be very few big corporations that would receive my business.

Often in my prayers I ask God for a good old fashioned judge to lead us back to Him. I would settle for someone with some power and publicity like a governor to use the office to push back with the force of the state. I admired Jan Brewer early on for her stand against immigration but with this veto and some of the things she’s done lately it appears that she doesn’t have any principles either. It is disappointing and disheartening.

I guess it is wishful thinking to have someone stand up to crony capitalism and corruption. Not only of politics but of the truth. She could have at least been honest in the content of the bill. I guess the truth isn’t popular these days.

Jeff in Idaho writes:

What do you or your readers believe is motivating companies to support the homosexual agenda? I do not see how it is in their best interest to do so.

 Laura writes:

Mr. McCulloch’s explanations are good ones. Certainly, they do not want to deal with the extremely militant homosexualist minority, but also most corporations are invested in destroying the family. They are invested in creating consumers who believe in unlimited progress. They support utopianism and extreme individualism because it’s good for business.

Anti-Globalist Expatriate writes:

Henry McCulloch wrote:

‘ . . . as with every Leftist movement I can think of, Jews are disproportionately involved and grossly disproportionately so among the leaders and ideologues. That’s a phenomenon that goes back at least to the late Harvey Milk and probably long before.’

Actually, it goes back to Leon Trotsky, as well as to Karl Marx’s mother.

Laura writes:

It goes back much farther. There was that choice between Barabbas and Christ.

Abigail writes:

I would say that sympathy for leftist causes among some Jews (including me) goes back even farther – to Moses and the other Hebrew prophets.  As “strangers in a strange land” throughout the centuries, we naturally have sympathy for marginalized and oppressed groups. We also have a tradition of challenging authority in the name of justice. Jesus, Himself a Jew, comes out of that very tradition.  That said, Jews are an incredibly diverse group both in the U.S. and around the world.  The stereotypical left-wing New Yorker represents only a small fraction of the Jewish people.

It is also worth noting that Jews are also influential on the right out of proportion to our numbers.  Influential right-wing Jews in this country include Ben Stein, Dennis Prager, Jonah Goldberg, and Charles Krauthammer, to name just a few who pop into mind.  I believe that we tend to be influential because of the cultural and religious emphasis in many (but not all) spheres of Judaism on education, intellectualism, the written word, analysis and argumentation.    These emphases lead Jews to develop (out of proportion to our numbers) those skills and interests that lead to influence, particularly in American society where influence tends to derive from discussion, persuasion and the ability to reach people, rather than on brute force.

 Laura writes:

I would say that sympathy for leftist causes among some Jews (including me) goes back even farther – to Moses and the other Hebrew prophets.

I don’t think you’ve thought through this. The Hebrews lived in submission to God’s will, not in the continual denial of it. They certainly didn’t support two guys on a wedding cake or anything like Communism. God punished them when they did not closely follow his commands.

 As “strangers in a strange land” throughout the centuries, we naturally have sympathy for marginalized and oppressed groups.

Your own sympathy for marginalized and oppressed groups obviously does not extend to marginalized and oppressed Christians. I assume you support the Arizona veto? In any event, the Talmud is very negative and unsympathetic toward non-Jews. Some might say that Jews generally support any and all marginalized and oppressed groups that threaten Christian society.

 That said, Jews are an incredibly diverse groups both in the U.S. and around the world.

Yes, of course. But they are not diverse when it comes to the denial of Christ and his rights over society.

We also have a tradition of challenging authority in the name of justice. Jesus, Himself a Jew, comes out of that very tradition.

Again, I don’t think you’ve thought through your analogies. Jesus did not challenge authority in principle, he affirmed it and he affirmed it in the name not of abstract justice but in Himself, in his very Divine Person. “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life.” He was the embodiment of justice. He established new authority, offering his Precious Blood to all mankind, including his beloved people, the Jews. Jewish leftism, which seeks to undermine and destroy the visible signs of this love and redemptive sacrifice in society, is not in any way comparable.

Influential right-wing Jews in this country include Ben Stein, Dennis Prager, Jonah Goldberg, and Charles Krauthammer, to name just a few who pop into mind.

These are critics of extreme leftism, but they have no positive vision for the restoration of social order, which necessarily involves the recognition of Christ’s rights over society and the infusion of Christ’s supernatural grace and love through all levels of society.

 I believe that we tend to be influential because of the cultural and religious emphasis in many (but not all) spheres of Judaism on education, intellectualism, the written word, analysis and argumentation.    These emphases lead Jews to develop (out of proportion to our numbers) those skills and interests that lead to influence, particularly in American society where influence tends to derive from discussion, persuasion and the ability to reach people, rather than on brute force.

I assume by “brute force” you are referring to the Arizona veto, which will lead to persecution of small business owners.

Jews are influential for a number of reasons. One, they have great natural gifts, which is not surprising given they were once God’s chosen people. Two, they have attenuated and unbalanced spiritual lives, which naturally inclines them to intense striving and materialistic ambition. Three, they often pursue messianic schemes for improving society (or I should say destroying society), schemes which fill them with energy, determination, initiative and combativeness.

Laura writes:

Given his natural gifts, the Jew’s denial of God by  his refusal to recognize the Messiah arguably constitutes a greater offense to God (this is purely personal conjecture) than the denial of God by someone with much lesser gifts as the Jew is much more capable of furthering Christ and his Kingdom on earth than the person of modest abilities.

In any event, all of Western society suffers immensely from the apostasy of the Jews, who by virtue of their gifts and their former covenant with God were able if they so chose to be a great force for good, not a force for the un-doing of man’s supernatural life and for his crippling subjugation to commerce and materialism.

Dan R. writes:

At a Democratic National Committee reception for Jewish American Heritage Month, back in May of 2013, our good friend Joe Biden had nothing but high praise for the Jewish role in creating the environment for “gay rights” to gain popular (arguable) and legislative acceptance.  Even as a non-practicing Jew I couldn’t help but cringe at his candor–usually called a gaffe–but at the same time couldn’t deny the considerable amount of truth to it.  The ironic thing in all of this is that the orthodox and conservative branches of Judaism have always been opposed to homosexuality.  Obviously the flock is not in full agreement, though I think there are various factors in play that make this in need of a more in-depth analysis.  In the meantime, Laura, fasten your seatbelt!

Jeff in Idaho writes:

I apologize for not elaborating my question.  I sent my question in haste and, in hindsight, it appears that I did not read Mr. McCulloch explanations.

Mr. McCulloch has offered reasonable explanations that I have also considered.    I agree that the Federal Government has been very vocal in its support of the homosexual agenda.  In the military, I saw first hand how this cultural mindset within the officer corps was unofficially enforced and strengthened. Those who “drink the cool-aide” thrive and those who do not are the first to move on. I am sure that the same is true in corporate America.

Even if government regulators are applying veiled pressure to support homosexuality, wouldn’t the best corporate policy be to decline to get involved in the issue?  Why ostracize consumers on either side of the issue?  How can destroying families be good for business?  Corporations seem to be acting against their own interests.  If this is the case and corporations are only trying to appease some other entity, what is motivating those the corporations hope to please?

I suspect that there is something deeper at play though I cannot yet see what it is.

Laura writes:

Individualism and hedonism are good for business. Stable families, especially those with many children, exercise thrift. People at the whim of their passions, people stressed and busy, are impulsive consumers.  In the short term, strong social bonds are not in the interest of those promoting materialism.

Dan R. writes:

“What do you or your readers believe is motivating companies to support the homosexual agenda? I do not see how it is in their best interest to do so.”

My thought is that major corporations, being dependent upon a massive customer base, are constantly engaged in a popularity contest of sorts, thus making it essential to be on top of cultural trends, i.e., the zeitgeist.  If in doubt, just reflect upon their advertising.  Their core belief is the bottom line.  Counterposed to that, can you imagine a major corporation standing against the tide?  Standing athwart history and yelling “stop?”  Only if such a stance has gained success, otherwise it’s “go with the flow.”  Much like corporate advertising attempted to co-opt the counter-culture of the ’60s.  To me, the unimaginable has occurred: in our attitudes toward homosexuality, as reflected in governmental and corporate policy, we have become a fag-hag nation.

 Paul T. writes:

“It goes back much farther. There was that choice between Barabbas and Christ.” But I think we were discussing Leftist movements…..and the mob that chose for Barabbas did not speak for an entire people.

That said, this Jewish convert to Catholicism finds nothing to to take issue with in your remarks on Jews, it being understood that generalizations about ‘the Jew’ sometimes shed more heat than light when applied to individuals, which of course you were not doing. I’ll take the opportunity to add that exposure to Christianity is the birthright of everyone on the planet, and that anyone who puts up obstacles to this, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, has much to answer for.

 Laura writes:

But I think we were discussing Leftist movements…

I was responding to Expatriate’s comments in reply to Mr. McCulloch’s remarks about Jews.

Paul writes:

Mr. McCulloch wrote: ‘ . . . as with every Leftist movement I can think of, Jews are disproportionately involved…That’s a phenomenon that goes back at least to the late Harvey Milk and probably long before.’

To which Expat added: “Actually, it goes back to Leon Trotsky, as well as to Karl Marx’s mother”.

So at this point the topic was Jewish involvement in Leftist movements. You then wrote: “It goes back much farther. There was that choice between Barabbas and Christ.”

That’s when (as a kind of throat-clearing intro to my own remarks about your observations re Jews), I said, well, THAT wasn’t about a Leftist movement.

Laura writes:

I’m sorry. I was unclear. I was thinking of leftist movements as being essentially revolts against Christ.

Abigail writes:

Laura writes:

Of course it matters to God whether people accept his revelation; otherwise, he wouldn’t bother to reveal himself. Does it matter whether one believes in one God or many gods? If one has an honest belief that Zeus is God, how could that possibly be an offense to God? (These are rhetorical questions.)

There are various reasons why people deny that Jesus was God, but this denial always involves the will. I didn’t speak of evil or malice in connection with disbelief, but obviously Jews often have malice toward the establishment of an explicitly Christian social order. You yourself have malice toward the idea that homosexuality should be stigmatized or that the Christian family should be preserved.

By the way, who do you believe Jesus was?

Abigail writes:

I believe that Jesus was both a Jewish nationalist and a charismatic spiritual leader. He was woefully mistaken in certain respects, but he was neither crazy nor lying. His errors were consistent with the culture of eschatological fervor prevalent in his time and place. He also possessed great spiritual insights, charisma, and striking personal qualities that inspired his followers to create an astonishingly influential new religion in his name.

 Laura writes:

It is astonishing that a universal religion was created by a Jewish nationalist. He was seriously misunderstood by his followers — and certainly by many Jews. And he spoke strange words for a Jewish nationalist:

And Jesus being come out of the temple, went away. And his disciples came to shew him the buildings of the temple. And he answering, said to them:

Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be destroyed. (Matt 24:1-2)

Also:

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matt 24-14)

There were many witnesses to his appearance after his death. And many were told firsthand what they had seen. It is strange that they chose death rather than deny the account of the Resurrection.

Please follow and like us: