Why do Jewish and homo — or Jomo — elites wield so much power? There are several obvious reasons: wealth, talent, organization, aggressiveness, victimology, and control of media/academia/entertainment. But there is another factor to their effectiveness: they are so persuasive because they are so pervasive.
Than merely putting forth their views and agendas as standalone arguments and issues, they ‘thread’ them into subjects and things that apparently have little or no relation to them. Take the issue of ‘global warming’. There have been many discussions and documentaries on the matter, but the reason why it became such an obsessive topic — at least before the global temperatures leveled off, whereupon the crisis was renamed ‘climate change’ — among ‘progressives’ and young people(who are impressionable and subjected to barrages of ‘educational’ materials via school and media) owes something to Liberalism’s pervasiveness with everything it touches. For example, the issue of global warming was ‘threaded’ into just about every topic the Liberals could get their hands on. A good example is the documentary THE FORTRESS OF THE BEAR. Now, I’m not going to discuss the veracity of the global warming issue. I have no idea how true or false it is, but we know that it’s been highly politicized by both sides, and the debate has become as much about pride and purse-strings as about science and climate. The relevant issue here is that a documentary about brown bears is threaded with the topic of global warming. So, even those who don’t want to hear about global warming and just want to watch a documentary about bears cannot get away from the issue. To be sure, there is nothing wrong with discussing a particular subject in relation to other subjects, because, after all, everything is connected to other things one way or another. No man or animal is an island unto himself or itself. The pollution we create here can affect living forms halfway around the globe. The collapse of one economy can shake the world economy. Nevertheless, there is something specious about how the Liberal community will take some hot topic issue and then try to thread it into just about everything. It can even turn into parody, as when some social critics remarked that bad behavior among American blacks owed to global warming. Despite having evolved to survive and handle the heat of sub-Saharan Africa, it seems blacks flip out at even the slightest rise in temperature.
“Is it higher [in Chicago]? Yes. Last year, we hit a record number of murders from guns, and this year, we were already outpacing last year’s numbers. Now, there are contributing factors that are not under anybody’s control, and it may seem odd, but it is factually true, one of them is actually the weather. There is a dramatic increase in gun violence when it is warmer, and we are having this climate-change effect that is driving that.”
Well, if the daughter of Hugh Hefner says so, it must be true. I wonder what accounts for the demise of PLAYBOY enterprise. Does the rise in temperature sap people’s sexual appetite?
Anyway, all this threading of a hot button issue into just about everything makes it pervasive to the point where you cannot get away it even if you wanted to. It’s like adding corn syrup or MSG to every food product so that you can’t avoid even if you wanted to.
And Liberals chose to thread the issue of global warming into documentaries about bears because it’s an easy to pull at viewers’ heartstrings; after all, we all grew up with teddy bears. Liberals know that an issue, no matter how fraught with urgency and significance, cannot gain emotional traction without holy victims. Since most of the developing world is against Western Liberal initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases, it’s a rather hard sell to make the non-white world the poster-boy of victimization due to global warming. Also, since the most dramatic changes happened in the Arctic region, Liberals sought to capitalize on them by showing how global warming was leading to the holocaust of bears and other species in the region. So, if you tuned into nature documentaries in the past 15 years, you probably heard sermons upon sermons about global warming even in programs focusing on other main topics. The issue has been made so pervasive that it became second nature among the knee-jerk ‘progressive’ crowd. I mean how can it not be true when everywhere they look and hear, they hear ‘global warming’, ‘global warming’ and ‘global warming’? Similarly, we cannot get away from the immigration debate since Liberals tell us that just about everything — the well-being and the advancement of the economy, morality and ethics, science and technology, innovation, entertainment, love life, quality of food, and etc. — is dependent on the passing of amnesty. If it doesn’t pass, ours will be an evil neo-Nazi nation, the economy will collapse, America will lose in science/technology to China and Mexico, we will have only white bread and water to eat, our schools will fail, innovation will come to a halt, and so on and so on.
Liberals thread their hot button issues into every fabric of American life and enterprise. The biggest and craziest hysteria today is ‘gay is beautiful’. So, even movies that seem to have nothing to do with homosexuality will have homo characters — shown in the best light, of course. At a beauty pageant, a contestant will be asked nicely if she supports ‘gay marriage’, and if her answer is no, she will be attacked viciously by the entire Jomo elite media. The Jomo elites feature images of the ‘gay flag’ as a kind of visual editorial day in and day out. Thus, even if the written coverage of a story may be reasonably ‘objective’, the accompanying photo of the ‘gay flag’ that associates fecal penetration and sex-change operation(involving mutilation and removal of perfectly healthy organs)with the rainbow essentially promotes the homo agenda. Here’s a good example of the photo that the Chicago Tribune used as its Facebook page’s cover photo.
Indeed, if you discuss homosexuality in relation to its sexual act, homos and their allies get all Victorian-like and talk as if you committed a foul deed, like breaking wind in public. Never mind that all you’ve done is describe what homos actually do. So, we are supposed to ignore what homos do in the form of ‘sex’ and instead associate their identity with rainbows and the ‘gay’ style. It’s no wonder that homos prefer to be called ‘gay’ than homo or homosexual. They want to distract us from the true nature of their foul ways of ‘sex’ because there isn’t much real pride in poo-ride. Thus, to make homosexuality more palatable to Americans, its ‘sexual’ and physical nature has been suppressed whereas its outward manifestations — colorful flags, angelic smiles of homo actors and celebrities on TV, and etc. — are sprinkled all over. It’s funny how Liberals take pride in yelling VAGINA and in having Vagina Monologues, but they freak out when we talk about the (mis)use of the anus by homosexuals; they don’t want us to have monologues or dialogues about the homo asshole that has seventeen times the likelihood of contracting anal cancer than the normal anus that doesn’t engage in such behavior. It’s ironic that the perversity of the homo movement has been thrust onto the national stage in the mode of clean-cut and white-bread(or white buns) 1950s FATHER KNOWS BEST TV show. Homos are presented as the new white bread. Perversion is the new decency. Anti-normalists and normophobes now have the power to pass judgement on people who still believe in the hierarchy of values. But of course, the ‘new normal’ — as the Jomo elites call it — is very selective for it doesn’t promote just any kind of deviancy. ‘Marriage equality’ doesn’t mean the right of ‘same family marriage’ or polygamy(or multiple partner) pride parades in NY, Chicago, or San Francisco. It just means the privilege of only the homos to rewrite marriage laws and pervert the values intrinsic to the very notion of marriage as a civilizational principle.
Anyway, the homo stuff is threaded into everything. So, DESPICABLE ME 2 has the Minions — who are ostensibly male as far we can tell — cross-dressing like transsexuals. And the movie ends with a wedding celebrated by Minions in Village People outfits singing "YMCA". Though the wedding is between man and woman, the song-and-dance is ‘gay’, as if to suggest that even real marriages must be ‘gay-friendly’. Once such threading has become part of the mainstream discourse, everyone gets into the act to be part of the fashionable scene. So, J.K. Rowling ‘outs’ a character as ‘gay’. As I haven’t read any Potter books or seen any Potter movies(except for 15 minutes of the one directed by Alfonso Cuaron which was enough!), I don’t know what relevance the character’s r place in the story has to do with fecal penetration or sucking another man’s penis. So, why should his ‘sexual orientation’ even be an issue? But for some reason, Rowling and her Jomo elites made it an issue, and all the kids hooked to HARRY POTTER stories — and who have grown up admiring of Dumbledore or Dumblebackdore — were instantly persuaded to think ‘gay is cool’. And Girl Scouts used to be about camping, having fun, and learning to be good girls. Today, it’s a indoctrination center that teaches young girls to embrace political correctness, hate whiteness, and worship lesbians. And with the Boy Scouts going pro-homo too, it will soon teach kids that it’s wonderful to be ‘gay’.
While it’s important to teach the virtue of tolerance in a free and democratic society, it’s quite another to elevate something perverted as being of equal value or worth with something that has essential value. Worse, it’s a moral crime to elevate something like homosexuality even higher than real sexuality and real marriage that produce life and morally obligate the creators of life to commit to the raising of the life they’ve created.
If we follow the logic of ‘gay marriage’, there is no special bond between parents and children. We might as well look upon humans as we do dogs. After all, we see nothing wrong with snatching puppies away from their real canine parents and having humans raise them. The logic of ‘gay marriage’ and ‘gay family’ means that we shouldn’t promote any kind of special bond between parent and child. As homos cannot produce life through homo ‘sex’, they must snatch children from real-sexuals in order to have a ‘gay family’. So, a homo guy will have to shut his eyes and have sex with a woman and then demand that the woman remove herself from the life of her own kid who is to be raised with his ‘gay’ partner. Or a lesbian will have to shut her eyes and be humped by a guy and then demand the guy to remove himself from the life of his kid who is to be raised with her lesbian partner. Of course, some men and women willingly remove themselves from the lives of their own children in order to serve the demands of homos(who insist on raising the kids in a ‘gay family’), but that just goes to show how utterly decadent and worthless liberalism has become.
In the case of adoption, the orphan, instead of being placed in a household that best resembles the very reason for his or her existence — the union of woman-mother and man-father — is placed in a house with ‘two daddies’(who act like freaks and stick each other in the anus) or ‘two mommies’. So, children might as well be seen as commodities like puppies in the window. But this is to be expected in a society where so many people think and act like dogs.
Consider the Pavlovian trick pulled off by the Jomo elite in the creation and promotion of the ‘gay flag’. A sound of a bell has nothing to do with food, but Pavlov showed that a dog can be made to associate the bell with food. Similarly, the beautiful rainbow has nothing to do with two guys ejaculating inside fecal holes or two women rubbing their holes together in a funny parody of sex. The rainbow has nothing to do with a man who opts to have his penis cut off and have it replaced by a fake vagina, followed by massive injections of artificial hormones. But the Jomo elite media have so often associated homosexuality with the rainbow ‘gay flag’ that when people see a rainbow — real, illustrated, or woven — , they think, "Ahhhh, what a lovely image of angelic and darling gays." How pathetic that adult Americans who graduated from college can be manipulated as easily as toddlers watching TELETUBBIES, which, let’s face it, IS homo propaganda for little ones.
Of course, since the 1960s, nothing was threaded into more narratives than the issue of ‘racism’. So, even characters who weren’t originally — or plausibly — black in the source material were made to be black in the movies or TV shows. And this became so pervasive as a narrative practice that many writers felt obligated to ‘include’ obligatory ‘diversity’ in their stories even if the results didn’t reflect the social reality. Or consider a film like WHEN A MAN LOVES A WOMAN — sold as a romantic drama — that veers into a series of ‘teachable moments’ that would has us believe that even patience and supportiveness are really forms of white male privilege and patriarchy when exhibited by a white male of course. You see, if white males are responsible and supportive, they make others dependent on them, and that too is a form of patriarchal domination. But it’s really a "damned-if-you, damned-if-you-don’t" situation for white males. They are on the wrong side no matter what they do. If a white male were to tell others to stop leaning on him and feeding off him and do their own thing, he would be accused of being uncaring, cold, selfish, and insensitive. But if he’s caring and supportive, he is guilty of making others dependent on his strength/responsibility, which is a kind of oppressive power. Needless to say, WHEN A MAN LOVES A WOMAN was written by two dirty Jews, Ronald Bass and Al Franken.
Consider CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER where the CIA director was made into a Magic Negro guy played by James Earl Jones with the burly tones. It’s especially ludicrous because we are supposed to admire a CIA director(of all people) as the moral conscience of the film! William Casey, who was probably the inspiration for the character in the novel, was loathed by the Liberal community, but with a Magic Negro taking his role, it was as if the CIA could indeed be a fountain of trust, honor, and wisdom. It’s like imagining MLK as CIA director, but of course, we mean MLK the myth as MLK the man was as devious, shrewd, lowdown, and dirty as J. Edgar Hoover, if not more so. Even the most cynical and anti-establishment Liberal starts feeling lumps in his throat and wee-wees in his pants when the Man with the Power happens to be a Negro, which is why the Jews pulled a good one with Obama. With Magic Negro Obama at the helm, the ‘progressive’ community was muted in their criticism of government’s subservience to Jewish-owned Wall Street and US foreign policy. Gee, I mean it might be ‘racist’ not to support a president who is black or mulatto.
The issue of ‘racism’ has been threaded into just about everything. So, even the discussion of Thanksgiving turkey dinner could make a dirty Jew like Ron Rosenbaum throw a hissy fit about the ‘racism’ of preferring white meat. Environmentalists got some traction in the 90s by threading the issue of ‘racism’ to their concerns, leading to endless charges of ‘environmental racism’, that is until a University of Chicago study showed that black people were not subject to higher levels of pollution. To be sure, some in the Jewish community were probably not happy with the notion of ‘environmental racism’ since they have such a huge stake in real estate, and if the charge were to stick, a lot of rich property-developing-and-trading Jews would have to answer for them.
If some forms of threading is obvious and blatant, others are more subtle and unexpected. It’s like a marketing ploy where you are sold on one line of goods only to discover that you’re being hoodwinked to buy something else. It’s like Congressmen adding extraneous items to a bill that has little or nothing to do with them. It’s like ordering a vegetarian dish only to find out that meat products have been added. If you let your kid join the Boy Scouts to learn about scout honor and camping, he could also be drummed with lessons on the angelic virtues of homos.
And from tolerance of homos, the PC dogma will demand serf-like subservience to homo neo-aristocrats. Just like Jews, deep in their heart, think in terms of ‘effendism’, homos think in terms of ‘boofendism’. For Jews and homos, it’s not enough that they should be tolerated by us. It’s not enough for us to respect their rights as individuals. We must worship and serve their supremacist agendas. While an American atheist doesn’t demand that all religious people love & worship him and while an American Christian doesn’t demand that all atheists kneel before him & worship his God, Jews and homos say it’s not enough for us to tolerate them; we must ‘welcome’ them, which means we must serve and worship them while they eat like effendi or boofendi.
Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his weekly Saturday night sermon said that non-Jews exist to serve Jews. “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel,” he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat. "Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat," he said to some laughter.
While most Jews are not religious and don’t literally believe that God created Jews and goyim for this purpose, their world-view, outlook, and attitude are in line with the words of the vile Jew Rabbi. One only needs to look at the political, cultural, moral, economic, and international affairs of America and Europe to notice that Jews — and their mini-me elites the homos — feel this way about us. We should serve them while they sit and eat like effendi or boofendi — ‘boof’ being a slang for ass-humping for those in the dark.
At any rate, we need to make a distinction between paradigm-ing and threading. In the film DR. AKAGI(aka KANZO SENSEI meaning Dr. Liver) by Shohei Imamura, a certain Japanese doctor is so obsessed with the liver as the source of all health and sickness that he tends to pattern-ize everything into something liver-ish. The film even begins with American pilots approaching Japan that looks like a diseased liver from above, and the film ends with an atomic cloud that takes on the semblance of a liver. With the eccentric doctor, his paradigmatically liver-ish view of everything — health, disease, humanity, society, history, etc. — is sincere. He isn’t trying to dupe anyone, and he honestly believes that the cure for everything, medical or social, is somehow related to the liver as a organ or a metaphor.
In contrast, those in the threading business know full well what they are doing. They are manipulators who slyly thread their hot topic/hot button issue even into ideas, images, sounds, themes, and things that have little or nothing to do with them. Thus, they like to thread the theme of ‘diversity’ into everything positive, duping people into believing that everything positive and wonderful is due mainly to ‘diversity’. This can get silly sometimes, as when some sports commentators say Americans are so good at basketball because of the ‘diversity’. Yeah, I guess there is Jeremy Lin, though, to be sure, given the surreal nature of PC, an all black team could be said to be ‘diverse’ while a team that is majority white is said to be ‘too white’.
