Billionaire conglomerator and former hedge fund manager Warren Buffett, owner and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, recently joined fellow billionaires Sheldon Adelson (Las Vegas Sands Corp.) and Microsoft founder William H. “Bill” Gates III to publish a joint editorial in America’s most influential newspaper, the New York Times (“Break the Immigration Impasse,” July 10, 2014), lecturing recalcitrant Congressional Republicans that it is time to join the Left in accelerating replacement migration (“immigration reform”), the globalist project to replace dwindling white populations with colored and Jewish populations. Replacement migration is a leading cause of the passing of the great race.
The Huffington Post, a large, popular representative anti-white website of the ruling class, headlined its approval “Sheldon Adelson, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates Chastise House GOP on Immigration.”
This partisan interpretation was confirmed by House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) on his official US government blog: “If House Republicans thought that no one would notice that they’ve failed to bring immigration reform to the Floor for a vote, they can think again. In response to Republican inaction, Sheldon Adelson, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates came together to send them a message.”
Hoyer wrote on his Twitter feed while I was accessing the site: “Today I spoke at @OSCE’s hearing on the rise of anti-Semitism, racism in the OSCE region http://1.usa.gov/1jTNnUh pic.twitter.com/PSNVMhdBcq.” In other words, more suppression of speech, throttling of democracy, and jailing of white dissidents in Europe—and ultimately North America.
A Zionist shill closely allied with AIPAC, Hoyer supports Middle East wars for Israel, racially discriminatory laws against whites, unconstitutional spying by intelligence agencies, abortion, homosexuality (his daughter is a lesbian), taking away citizens’ guns, and increasing taxes on the middle class.
The billionaires’ editorial claimed that “Most Americans believe that our country has a clear and present interest in enacting immigration legislation that is both humane to immigrants living here and a contribution to the well-being of our citizens.”
“Immigrants living here” refers to tens of millions of non-whites (and their descendants) illegally imported into this country in blatant violation of existing laws, which since 1965 have been extraordinarily lenient. The principal malefactors, apart from the illegals themselves, have been the well-to-do, Jews, and government. If good guys could break the law with equal impunity, we would be well on our way to achieving white power.
Because the objective these privileged people seek is so malignant, so contemptuous of law, so fundamentally racist, so violative of norms against genocide, the editorial is mealy-mouthed in the extreme. For example: “Americans are a forgiving and generous people, and who among us is not happy that their forebears—whatever their motivation or means of entry—made it to our soil?” (Emphasis added.) What does that even mean? It is nonsensical.
The authors point to an obscure legal provision, the EB-5 immigrant investor program created by Congress in 1990 “to allow a limited number of foreigners with financial resources or unique abilities to move to our country, bringing with them substantial and enduring purchasing power.”
People willing to invest in America and create jobs deserve the opportunity to do so. [Why? Let them move to Israel and take their gifts there.] Expanded investments of that kind would help us jolt the demand side of our economy. These immigrants would impose minimal social costs on the United States, compared with the resources they would contribute. New citizens like these would make hefty deposits in our economy, not withdrawals.
In addition to being bad policy, EB-5 has nothing to do with what the trio is really seeking: passage of the Democrats’ permanent “legalization” bill. The opening paragraph of the editorial chastises the Establishment for running scared after voters expelled immigration proponent US Rep. Eric Cantor from office in the June 2014 Virginia Republican primary.
Cantor is the highest-ranking Jewish member of Congress in history. Some in the Establishment attributed his loss to white “anti-Semitism,” a racist trope the authors are subtly playing to. However, the issue in Cantor’s campaign was replacement immigration, not EB-5 or any other marginal program.
The authors also lie: “For the future, the United States should take all steps to ensure that every prospective immigrant follows all rules and that people breaking these rules, including any facilitators, are severely punished.” Such whoppers are appropriate, since replacement immigration is built on lies. Everything the Left and government say about immigration is a lie, including “and” and “the.”
In the editorial byline, Sheldon Adelson’s name comes first, Warren Buffett’s second, and Bill Gates’ third. This is also alphabetical. The editorial is doubtless Buffett’s (possibly Adelson’s), doing, not Gates’. He’s simply along for the ride.
Sure, Gates desires the destruction of European peoples as fervently as his co-authors do. He has said, “I’ve been very lucky, and therefore I owe it to try and reduce the inequity in the world. And that’s kind of a religious belief. I mean, it’s at least a moral belief.” (For more on this line of reasoning, or rationalization, see Buffett on the “ovarian lottery,” below. One of Buffett’s odd psychological tics is copious off-center references to sex.)
Gates, who I believe is not religious, is raising his three children Roman Catholic because that’s what his wife is. Melinda Gates’ phenotype (also here), by the way, demonstrates how difficult it is in thoroughly miscegenated European living spaces to tell who is biologically white simply by looking at them. Limited public information suggests her background is European, but who knows? (She is from Dallas.) Such might be the case, but you’d need a family tree or genetic test to be certain. And she and Gates were born before the integration/immigration/miscegenation deluge. It’s gotten much worse since.
Buffett cultivated Gates’ acquaintance as calculatedly and assiduously as he did that of other powerful people, such as Katherine Graham, the half-Jewish owner of the Washington Post (Jewish oligarch father, German Lutheran mother). Since Gates had no interest in meeting Buffett, whom he scornfully regarded as a man who played the stock market rather than created things, Buffett wangled an invitation through the software mogul’s mother. She insisted that her busy, reluctant son be present. That was all Buffett needed; he had a new conquest. Indeed, he won his first wife as a young man from the Jew she intended to marry by being persistent and also plying her father. (Buffett was of course thrilled when his own daughter married a Jew, who he made a director of the Buffett Foundation.)
Warren Buffett did Bill Gates two enormous favors.
He (recently) arranged to convey the bulk of his colossal fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in order to off-load the task of distributing it himself, a chore he did not relish. (He had been continuously pestered for years about what he would do, philanthropically, by his Jewish and white peers.)
More importantly, his seal of approval transformed Bill Gates overnight from a social pariah, America’s Aryan devil-incarnate (a figment of the Jews’ perfervid imaginations) and Most Hated Businessman, into mainstream Mr. Acceptable.
Gates is likely responsible for the only specific endorsements in the editorial (save for EB-5, which sounds like Buffett): that foreign (non-white) high tech workers and graduates of American universities be encouraged to come to and remain in this country without limit in order to take high-paying jobs from American workers. (Eight days after the Times editorial appeared, Microsoft announced it was cutting up to 18,000 jobs over the next year, its biggest round of layoffs ever. The editorial claimed that computer science and technology firms are “badly in need of” an endless supply of non-native workers.)
Gates is a strong proponent, at least within Microsoft, of high intelligence (IQ). He doesn’t care what race his employees are—though, other things being equal, I’m sure he prefers non-whites, Jews, homosexuals, lesbians, the “transgendered,” and women to white men. Why? Because it is conventional “morality,” and enjoys the sanction of law.
To fully grasp the importance of intelligence to Gates, and its role in shaping Microsoft from its founding in 1975 through the mid-1990s (i.e., during the company’s fabulous growth years), Randall E. Stross’s The Microsoft Way (1997) is the book to consult. (Ignore the less-than-enthusiastic Amazon reviews in this case; the book conclusively demonstrates the centrality of intelligence to Gates from an enterprise perspective.)
Gates illustrates the truism, despite heated propaganda to the contrary, that IQ or eugenics (either one) are not necessarily connected to white racialism. As an example, quarter-Jewish psychologist Arthur Jensen, a famous IQ advocate, did not give a damn about white survival. Neither do Gates, Buffett, or, of course, Adelson. (All of them would adopt the opposite stance with respect to Jews.)
The editorial seems primarily Buffett’s doing. For one thing, the New York Times serves as his soapbox whenever the spirit moves him to make a solemn moral pronouncement to the nation. (He wouldn’t speak more than once at a Quaker meeting, but he’d be tempted to.) The editorial’s brevity, clarity, cautious wording, and moralistic tone are also Buffett hallmarks.
And yet, the piece does not outright say amnesty should be granted, though everyone, including myself, reads it that way. After all, that is Sheldon Adelson’s position, and presumably Gates’ and Buffett’s as well. But this lack of forthrightness mitigates the value of the homily to Congressional conservatives.
The piece actually says, “The three of us vary in our politics and would differ also in our preferences about the details of an immigration reform bill. But we could without doubt come together to draft a bill acceptable to each of us.” “Each of us”? Why not “all of us”? This, they say, holds a lesson for Republicans: “You don’t have to agree on everything in order to cooperate.” “Whatever the precise provisions” (?) of “a well-designed immigration bill” (?) would be, the lack of one “depresses” virtually all business managers.
Adelson, Buffett, and Gates do not possess the authority to speak on behalf of that vast and heterogeneous group. Ultimately, it’s not clear what they’re saying.
Warren Buffett is, in effect, an exponent of Left-wing egalitarian philosopher John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice (1971), though I have never seen Rawls’ name mentioned in any Buffett biography I’ve read. Buffett thinks in terms of an “ovarian lottery.” I don’t know whether he believes this, or adopts the view because it sounds good and is socially convenient, but it is the excuse he repeatedly uses to justify, de facto, the overthrow of Western civilization and promotion of Jewish interests. (He is fanatical about the latter.) Buffett, I should emphasize, is not religious.
Philosophically or psychologically inclined readers who want to better understand why whites subscribe to the misguided positions they do should probably take the time to listen carefully (and critically) to the first 4 minutes of a 5-minute YouTube clip in which Buffett expounds his concept of the “ovarian lottery” (which, again, is John Rawls, whether Buffett has read him or not). Buffett, a prominent Democrat, uses this justification over and over before white audiences to promote malicious Left-wing policies. The theory has implications for ethical attitudes and behavior affecting race, intelligence, wealth distribution, male-female differences, and much more. It isn’t stale academic philosophy, but, for better or worse, philosophy-as-lived, philosophy-that-guides-behavior, philosophy-that-affects-the-world.
The argument is important because Buffett is powerful and influential in his own right, and his statement is a major component of what motivates (or at least justifies) his anti-social behavior. He also serves as a role model for other influential people. Buffett almost certainly articulates explicitly an impulse many whites possess but cannot articulate (i.e., for them it is unconscious and therefore the underlying assumptions are not explicit). I cannot identify the flaws in the argument here, because that would be a separate huge task. (Indeed, I have never tried to do so.) I simply draw readers’ attention to it because it is central to Buffett’s (and apparently Gates’, and others’) thinking.
I have read a great deal about Buffett, and there is no question that he is a genius. He is not fundamentally a good or decent man in my opinion, but his IQ is off the charts. Frankly, I have long suspected that, on average, high intelligence and morality are inversely related.
Because so much has been written about him and he loves the limelight, Buffett offers excellent material for a psychological study of the white middle-class mentality, whose faults (and some virtues) he exemplifies to a T despite his privileged upbringing: moralism instead of morality giving rise to a kind of unpleasant dishonesty, conformity, attention-seeking, status anxiety, egalitarianism, over-sensitiveness, and the need to be liked and respected by the “right” people no matter what.
Buffett supports the anti-white revolution because it’s what the right people want, but he won’t sacrifice anything for it. Half-Jewish Secretary of State John Kerry ostentatiously throwing “his” (actually somebody else’s) medals over the fence in front of the U.S. Capitol while leading a protest of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971 offers a perfect metaphor. It’s the sort of false gesture Buffett can appreciate—analogous to his endless public complaints that he isn’t taxed enough while systematically hoarding from the taxman every dime he possibly can.
Warren Buffett causes enormous social damage and receives plaudits for “boldness” while never exposing himself to risk. Society, other people, lose, but Warren Buffett does not. The same is true of the middle-class generally. They are zealous participants in an intensely competitive race to the bottom. Their collective irresponsibility is a recipe for disaster.
Finally, at the bottom of the barrel is Sheldon Adelson, the odious Jewish casino mogul who owns homes in Las Vegas, Nevada; Malibu, California; Newton, Massachusetts; and Tel Aviv, Israel, among other places, and visits Israel six to eight times a year. He and his wife, an Israeli doctor, were married in Jerusalem and their children bar mitzvahed there. Adelson has lavished more than $50 million on Holocaust shrines.
It is unclear what role he played in the Buffett farce. Was part of the goal to wrap his unsavory character in Buffett’s moral mantle?
A Left-wing Republican, Adelson is the 11th-richest American with a fortune of $29 billion. In recent years he has poured tens of millions of dollars into funding anti-white immigration candidates within the Republican Party. He and his wife spent more than $92 million on the 2012 elections alone. (The Jewish/Left-wing Media Matters says $150 million.)
A lifelong Democrat, he switched to the Republican Party partly because he viewed it as more reliably pro-Zionist. Though Adelson is fanatical about replacement migration for the US, he is a staunch nativist and racist when it comes to Israel, where he owns the largest-circulation newspaper and supports the opposite policies for his own people. Recently he received the go-ahead to purchase the newspaper Ma’ariv.
Adelson claims Palestinians “teach their children that Jews are descended from swine and apes, pigs and monkeys,” and that “all they want to do is kill” Jews. Talk about “defamation” and “hate speech”! Isn’t that illegal? Shouldn’t he be prosecuted and jailed, or at least Mel Gibsoned or James Watsoned? Adelson advocates putting “up a big fence around our territory” (Israel).
In a 2013 talk at New York City’s Yeshiva University, Adelson proposed launching a nuclear missile at Iran from Warren Buffett’s home state of Nebraska and letting it “harmlessly” explode in “the desert” to compel that country to obey Jewish-US-British-EU dictates: “You say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position.” (I dare any white nationalist, celebrity, Forbes 400 member, or political insider to publicly talk or write this way about Jews.) The Jewish audience cheered, and no one on the stage uttered a word of dissent. (The current head of America’s land-based nuclear missile force, by the way, is General Jack Weinstein, also a Jew.)
According to Media Matters earlier this year, Adelson’s gambling enterprises, many of which are situated in Macau, China (now the largest gambling center in the world), have been investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Justice Department, and the Securities and Exchange Commission for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), an anti-bribery statute. They have also been investigated by Chinese regulators. (Jews have established major beachheads in China.)
Besides investigations for bribing Chinese officials, Sands paid the US government $47 million for laundering millions of dollars from gamblers engaged in drug trafficking and embezzlement. Adelson’s businesses are also involved with the Triads (Chinese organized crime).
This is the repugnant creature Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Republican politicians and presidential aspirants, and Democratic officials like Steny Hoyer unapologetically praise and consort with, as if they were taking the moral high ground.
It is admittedly surprising, given how jealously Buffett guards his reputation. For purely selfish reasons (and Buffett is very selfish), Adelson isn’t the sort of person you’d ordinarily think he’d associate with. And yet, there they are, the sanctimonious number one (Gates) and number two (Buffett) richest men in America pushing for the replacement of the white population by Third World immigrants, proudly linked arm in arm with . . . Sheldon Adelson.
Buffett’s association with Adelson, like so much of his hypocritical behavior, belies his phony, high-minded public persona. None of the information I’ve mentioned is difficult to obtain. Mainstream media accounts, as well as PBS’ Frontline and other investigative sources, have detailed it all. (E.g., “His Man in Macau: Inside the Investigation Into Sheldon Adelson’s Empire,” PBS Frontline, July 16, 2012.)
Anyway, advocacy of replacement migration alone—for Buffett knows exactly what he’s doing—tells you all you need to know about the Oracle of Omaha’s vaunted “ethics.”