Counter-Currents
2,967 words
Billionaire oligarch Sheldon Adelson wants open borders for America, secure borders for Israel.
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.
L. to R.: Old billionaires Sheldon Adelson, Warren Buffett, & Bill Gates
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.”
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
27 comments
And how many women today would be happy to realize that they are regarded as just the ovarian lottery hole to such a despicable man? Ten houses, an unlimited visa card, shop til you drop? Do you know how to say no? It suddenly occurred to me why Jesus said it was easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than enter the kingdom of heaven. Thank you Mr. Buffet for that revelation. I am very sorry your mommy did not teach you anything, or being just the lottery hole had nothing to teach.
I feel a bit ill after reading that.
I have a feeling that Adelson at least understands he’s a scumbag, which ironically makes him more moral.
Adelson at least is defending his Tribe (jews define themselves as a Tribe), the truth is that there is no tribalistic instintict among any group of Whites, everywhere they have been atomized.
Oh, yes there is. I am certainly one. For as long as I can remember (hint: I went to schools that had a large black student population). Problem is there’s not enough of us…yet. Time’s running out though.
I’m unsurprised by these machinations. This has been the generic Jewish behavioral pattern throughout the ages –
#1. identify (social structures under strain)
#2. corrupt (tell them they are oppressed and need a good dose of liberation; or maybe show them dreams of another world to remove their focus on this one)
#3. agitate (peasants against evil bourgeoisie, women against evil patriarchy, homosexuals against evil homophobes, American pseudo-patriots against the Soviet bogeyman etc.)
#4. destroy (exhaust/corrode/demoralize the Gentile parties to the conflict)
#5. replace (assume the former elite’s place as the new one)
In Russia, it was the nihilistic/anti-social/messianic upper class rejects, gullible peasantry, self-serving ethnic minorities (Poles, Georgians, Armenians et. al.), create-utopia-far-away-from-home Western Europeans/Americans that were recruited to do the Jews’ bidding.
Everybody received their prizes at last:- bourgeois rejects received total destruction of existing Russian social fabric just as they wanted, peasants eliminated their exploiter parasites just as they wanted, minorities received a few token seats at the Sovnarkom just as they wanted and the fellow-travellers got a taste of Utopia from a safe distance just as they wanted.
In the case of America, it seems the Judaized elites are the prime recruits in the orgy of destruction.
This Rockefeller is particularly thrilled by the prospect of race-mixing with a Jew and raising the mongrel offspring with Jewish ethnic identity
This is true for pretty much every segment of your elite nowadays.
Perhaps the author should refer to scums like Buffet and Gates as “Honorary Jews” as that’s exactly what they are.
Well said, but I have to object to the bit about American pseudopatriots vs. the Soviet bogeyman. You should browse through THE BLACK BOOK OF COMMUNISM before you dismiss the Cold War, which was an absolute necessity.
The Black Book of Communism describes exclusively the early Judaized USSR, where tikkun olam was the state religion.
I can assure you, that after Georgians (who earlier displaced Jews) were displaced by ethnic Russians, Soviet Union abandoned cannibalism as state policy.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying USSR was a paradise, which it was never by any means.
And RealPolitik meant that the two great powers were destined to come into conflict over resources sooner or later, one way or another.
What I meant to say, was that the time and energy of flag-waving Americans were largely misplaced, as the greater enemy wrapped its tentacles around their society.
The Cold War has ended and the USSR is gone now, but how has that helped the victor?
Hardly any. In Soviet puppet GDR, the state promoted large families to recover German population.
Contrast this with your (by no means accidental) Roe v. Wade. the effect of which has been nothing short of genocide.
Communism was a source of mass death and totalitarianism even where there were no Jews to impose it, e.g., China, North Korea, Cambodia, so a change in the ethnic makeup of the Soviet leadership was no cause for relief.
Roe v. Wade has resulted in the abortion of more than one third of black babies for 40 years. Since non-whites abort more than whites, as terrible as it is to say, Roe v. Wade has actually postponed white demographic displacement by decades, as well as eliminated a great deal of crime, chaos, and ugliness.
The word, “communism”, cannot be understood univocally. For instance, China was communist to the extent that the Russian’s bankrolled the Party, but as soon as the Chinese could, they split from the Soviet bloc. Many people died through the bizarre collectivist economics instituted by the CCP, but these policies, too, were soon abandoned.
Actually, it is better to understand Chinese communism as the means of uniting various warlord factions, a mostly unfulfilled task that had been going on since the beginning of time, in China. Political murder in China had been, historically, the pretty much the order of the day, while the Cultural Revolution just organized it by way of mass media, and on a grand scale. Once that was completed, communism (really, the cult of warlord Mao) was abandoned, and transformed into a more institutionalized “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”. As a result, China now exists as a large one party, non-liberal ethnostate.
Communism was a source of mass death and totalitarianism even where there were no Jews to impose it, e.g., China, North Korea, Cambodia, so a change in the ethnic makeup of the Soviet leadership was no cause for relief.
I have never tried to justify Communism, Greg, which is anyways unjustifiable.
What I meant to say that the Soviet threat was abused as psychological weapon to convince the American (pseudo?)-patriot that his only enemy lay outside, that’s all.
Roe v. Wade has resulted in the abortion of more than one third of black babies for 40 years. Since non-whites abort more than whites, as terrible as it is to say, Roe v. Wade has actually postponed white demographic displacement by decades, as well as eliminated a great deal of crime, chaos, and ugliness.
I didn’t know that. Thanks for that piece of critical information.
If you are going to talk about Roe vs. Wade, you should take a look at the historical abortion rates in East Germany, where the vast majority of victims were innocent whites:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-eastgermany.html
The rate increased substantially during the 1970s, although it didn’t quite reach the catastrophic levels of the USSR, where abortions outnumbered live births for four whole decades beginning in the late 1950s. This process continued in the Russian Federation for another two decades,before the number of births finally outnumbered the abortions for the first time in more than half a century in 2007. Even after that benchmark, there are still more than one million abortions per year in Russia. You cannot pretend the Soviet Union and its satellites were a relative bastion of health compared to degenerate America if the statistics demonstrate the opposite (which they do).
It’s also worth mentioning the GDR’s forced adoption policies, which amounted to little more than state sanctioned kidnapping. Margot Honecker, who to this day lives as an unrepentant fugitive from justice in Chile, was a notorious advocate, and helped to break up thousands of families who tried to resist the Soviet indoctrination machine:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dictators-wife-defiant-over-forced-adoptions-1817710.html
This still happens in reunified Germany if parents try to commit the crime of homeschooling. They don’t simply want children. They want children who will be effective cogs in their political-economic institutions. This is as true now as it was in the GDR, though nowadays, the authorities would rather import Turks than enact policies to ameliorate the native birth rate. They were too busy shutting people in behind a massive wall to let anyone in or out, except for visting immigrants from countries like Vietnam, Mozambique and other allied socialist republics, and of course the Red Army Faction terrorists who were trained by the Stasi.
Communism is a terrible thing. What’s the relevance, though, to abortion in the US, which is racially advantageous to whites?
Speaking of Germany and it’s low birth rate, a German cardinal did say German women should have 4 babies, instead of importing non-whites:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329471/Cardinal-Joachim-Meisner-says-women-babies-solve-countrys-population-crisis.html
“Frankly, I have long suspected that, on average, high intelligence and morality are inversely related.”
There’s something to that. I agree in the sense that intelligent people are more likely to recognize that conventional morality is merely an arbitrary set of rules and thus completely discard it. This could be a type of immoralism (unless one rejects morality based on moral principles).
In another sense, taking your theory to the other extreme, full-blown psychopaths (though they are brighter on average) are only occasionally true geniuses, and a number of highly intelligent individuals are endowed with a remarkable capacity for empathy. At the uppermost levels of human intelligence everything seems to exist in these sorts of extremes. Or even a duality of extremes. Jonathan Bowden might be a good example.
It’s a fascinating theory. Perhaps it could be elaborated upon a bit more.
Morality is not an arbitrary set of rules, it is the foundation of cooperation, the bedrock of the State. Morality is your engagement with the human race, however you might define it. Abandon it and you become a narcissist, like jews, like Buffett. Evil, if you can wrap your mind around an ancient and simple concept.
Right. I’m trying to understand the author’s theory that morality and intelligence are inversely correlated and in what sense he means this really.
Of course morality forms the bedrock of every society. But conventional morality is far from infallible, and people of high intelligence may be more inclined to view conventional morality as a window into society’s subconscious than an absolute set of rules. This perspective in itself is not immoral in my opinion but I thought it might have been what the author was alluding to. I was not arguing against morality generally. We are no different from those whom we claim to fight if we do not uphold our honor and our sense of what is right and good as you pointed out.
Personally I don’t think there is a clear connection between intelligence and morality.
From what I’ve studied, they are positively correlated in that at least a reasonable IQ is necessary in order to put yourself in the other person’s shoes. But from there it’s a matter of choice whether to care or not. One could even go the other way and use ones empathy as a took in hurting the other person. This is based on the work of Laurence Kohlberg – a Jew I believe. He worked off of the insight of Piaget, the Frenchman who studied overall human cognitive development.
For example if you show a young child a block colored red on one side and blue on the other and then ask him what color you are seeing on your side, he will assume you are seeing the same color as he is – even though he had a chance to examine the block before. His mind is just not developed yet to see other perspectives besides the one he is experiencing. Obviously such a child or child like person is incapable of any real morality besides “Do this or else”. Someone like Buffet simply chooses not to care – or he even enjoys his betrayal of his people. The use of conventional morality as a mask is a classic psychopathic trait.
Obviously someone really bright and bad has great capacity to do harm – especially since the system seem geared specifically for such people now. Perhaps that’s what inspired Mr Hamilton’s viewpoint.
Kohlberg does gesture towards universality being the highest stage of morality and his disciples carried this aspect even further. Obviously that’s problematic for Nationalists and people who love their culture and race.
One of the more surreal aspects of politics in the 21st century is how the “Occupy” movement claims to be fighting against the “One Percent.” Yet the One Percent is not only financing the left, but also providing it with its agitprop (via the mainstream media), as well as government muscle (via hatespeech laws, ad nauseam).
We can add to the Adelson-Buffet-Gates trio such worthies as George Soros (and his many machinations), David Gelbaum (who bought the Sierra Club), and many more uber-capitalists. And there are the corporate foundations who finance the left directly (via grants) and indirectly (via the universities). One can only imagine how far White Nationalists or the European Right would get if they had but a fraction of this support!
A case in point is the leftist attack on the “corporate media.” I don’t think I have to point out how most of the print media and television promotes the liberal-progressive-leftist party line. The recent beatification of Nelson Mandela is one example. Again, imagine if White Nationalists had access to but a fraction of that media empire, and used it to instead glorify Ian Smith.
There’s a real disconnect here, one which I’d like to see explored.
Thomas Picketty’s new book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” is causing quite a stir on the left about how the people at the top of the economic pyramid control increasing wealth and thus the political apparatus. But when you confront them about the Adelsons or Gates or leftist corporate foundations, they return a blank stare.
Cognitive dissonance, no doubt.
The left can not face up to the reality. Rather, they live in the delusion that it is still the 19th century with heroic communist revolutionaries fighting against the big bad capitalist class. But that world no longer exists. The capitalists today are largely pulling the strings on the left. And those capitalists are promoting a globalized world in which individual nation-states will be a thing of the past, no longer capable of resisting.
Mass immigration undermines the working and middle classes economically, while the increased crime from third world gangs justifies increasingly repressive police measures. The US is literally being turned into a third world country (via the importation of this world masses and more jackboots on the ground) and what is the left’s response? To jump on the pro-immigration bandwagon!
Amazing, is it not?
Somewhere, Gary Allen must be smiling, cynically…
USA: 3RD MOST POPULOUS NATION ON EARTH–TIME TO BAN ALL IMMIGRATION
JEWISH DELUSIONS ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.
Thanks for the great article. Adelson is a Jewish alienist and wants to destroy the white majority because Judaists believe they are a “special race” called “Jews”, though they are mostly whites whose ancestors converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages. They do this because they are deluded by the mythical Torah (OT) which is an obvious piece of fiction, a “forgery” (–Joseph McCabe) and “spurious” (Thomas Paine, Age of Reason).
With so much unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, water shortages, urban sprawl and mile long congestion, this 3rd most populous nation on earth (after China and India) should be totally banning immigration, not importing more aliens. China and India both have ZERO immigration and actually have 1 million net E-migration (export) per year.
We cannot defuse the world’s population bomb by creating our own immigration bomb.
Besides boycotting these alienists (never go to Las Vegas and never buy Microsoft products), we need to send faxes to our congressmen (numbersusa.com) and amend the constitution to allow binding superseding national referenda so people can pass good laws themselves, such as banning immigration, something which even 3rd world countries have!! Go to the National Initiative For Democracy Site and Take Action. (See ncid.us).
“though they are mostly whites whose ancestors converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages. “
Genetically, Jews are not White same way a real Englishman, Irishman, Russian, etc. is White. That’s a fact. They’re only “white” when it’s convenient to be. I can look at Adelson and easily see his Jewish features in spite of his lack of melanin.
Few white gentiles have converted to Judaism over the centuries, and those that did, the overwhelming majority did so because of marriage to a Jew or Jewess. Jewish leaders, rabbis (the Talmud is filled with examples) and cultural marxist subversives like Jewess Susan Sontag (back in the 1960s) have stated that they are not “white” and that “the white race is the cancer of human history” (There goes that Jewish projection thing again. Wrong, lezzie, your tribe is). Do you think she’d say that if she considered herself to be White? Hell no.
As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, if this illegal immigration into our country were that of Whites from Europe, especially blonde-haired, blue-eyed Nordics (I know, it would’ve never been allowed to happen in the first place because our borders would be secured and our immigration laws would be strictly enforced), you wouldn’t hear a peep from the elitist mouths of Gates and Buffett both very well-insulated from the ‘wonders’ of diversity along with puffy-faced, tough-talking Adelson, who would be vociferously opposed to any “immigration reform” (read: legaliziing illegal aliens)!
Take this one step further: what if the immigrants were white Rhodesians or South Africans escaping from black majority rule fiascoes? Would we see the elites welcoming them?
“Most Americans believe that our country has a clear and present interest in enacting immigration legislation
Yes, we do, to return of the once-sane, once pro-White immigration laws we had prior to the passage of organized Jewry’s (I repeat myself) nation-wrecking Hart-Cellar Act better known as the Immigration Act of 1965.
that is both humane to immigrants living here and a contribution to the well-being of our citizens.”
Yes indeed, to humanely round-up these illegal alien interlopers, process them, compensate them for their property or personal belongings they can’t take back with them, and promptly deport back to Mexico and other Third World countries they came from. If our government can spend two trillion dollars to invade, destroy and occupy Afghanistan, Iraq, fund dissent in Syria, etc., and have endless funds available to subsidize and arm the Zionist state, deporting all these illegal aliens that in no way, shape or form improve the quality of White (and even Black) people that live next door to (like yours truly) or around them would be a cake walk!
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”!
That’s not “defamation” and “hate speech”, this is:
“Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leaders with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”–Menachem Begin, former Israeli Prime Minister
>Snip<
This quote from Begin is bogus. I am sure you did not know that, but it did not smell right to me, and I have not been able to track it back to any credible source.
So Texe Marrs is not a credible source? I wouldn’t put it past a fanatical Zionist like Begin to make such a statement. The jury is still out on this one as far as I’m concerned.
How about this statement?
“One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” –Rabbi Ya’acov Perin in his eulogy at the funeral of mass murderer Dr. Baruch Goldstein.
Same fanatics, same mindset.
I can supply several more but I’m sure you do get my original point.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment