Usury and Homosexuality
EVER wonder why corporate America is so enthusiastic about the “gay family?” Here is one example of many television commercials featuring homosexual couples that have appeared in the last two years. This isn’t just some fluke, some daring ad by a rogue company, but a common phenomenon among corporate retailers who advertise on TV. You can find on the Internet videos of similar ads by Expedia, Chobani yogurt, Cheerios, Nabisco, Allstate Insurance, Microsoft Outlook, Tylenol, Hallmark, Nordstrom’s, Taco Bell, Abercrombie and Fitch, Urban Outfitters and others. Chobani even went so far as to show two young women undressed in bed together.
Those who are angered by this, especially because children are exposed to these ads, and who wish to oppose the ads by boycotting certain products quickly find it difficult because of the large number of companies who have jumped on the bandwagon. As far as I know, there is not single ad that is critical of the homosexual agenda.
You would think that it would make more marketing sense to pitch products to middle class, mainstream families who have children and spend more money on consumer goods. But instead we see retailers appealing to a tiny subset and going out of their way to anger conservative families.
Why do they do it? Why not just play it safe and remain non-controversial? No one’s going to sue companies for not having two dads in their commercials.
Some people would say that all this is just because of the politics of the people who work in the advertising business and in corporate offices. But businesses rarely choose politics over profit. There must be a business motive.
Last fall, I attended a talk by E. Michael Jones, the author of Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury, and he made an interesting point about corporate promotion of homosexuality. While I cannot reproduce his exact words, this is the gist of his argument. First, he said societies in which usury (the business of profiting from interest-bearing loans) is rampant tend to be ones in which homosexuality is more common. He did not provide historical examples but from his book, there is the case of the devastation usury caused to family stability in Renaissance Florence.
Choosing usury over investment, including higher wages in the wool industry was quite literally starving Florence to death, but the oligarchs were too rich to notice. The wool industry was the source of Florentine wealth, and yet but he early 17th century, the number of wool workshops had dropped from 84 to 46, resulting in the impoverishment of the most marginal classes.
[..]
Not only were families not being formed among the proletariat, workers were fleeing because they were hopelessly in debt. (pp. 155-157]
Sound familiar? Think of America’s closed factories. A system that favors investors over labor undermines financial independence, family and manhood. It encourages sterility. For corporate America, it makes business sense to glorify homosexual liberation not just to perpetuate an oligarchic system that is far removed from “free enterprise” and to romanticize the harm it causes, but to subvert anti-capitalism among the grass roots.
Leftists used to be anti-capitalist, Jones pointed out. Self-respecting hippies were opposed to bullying corporate monopolies and suspicious of Big Business. But that changed a few decades ago. They became fixated on the sexual revolution and specifically homosexual liberation. (Jones places much of the blame for this on the influence of Michel Foucault, the French philosopher and literary critic.) By pushing homosexuality into the faces of traditional Americans, confident corporations are not just fostering this distraction but they are in a way saying to the middle class, “Back off. You lost. You have no power over us at all.” (more…)






