The Hell of Gates Shall Not Prevail (Gates, Buffett, and the Culture of Death)

Human Life International ^ | 6/29/2006 | Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer

[Pyro7480]

The Hell of Gates Shall Not Prevail

In what seems like a well-scripted one-two punch of the culture of death, the world’s two richest men have dazzled our fawning media and society with their dangerous magic in the past several weeks. The sequential announcement of the pending retirement of Bill Gates from Microsoft and the gift of some $40 billion from Warren Buffet to the Gates’ foundation ought to strike fear in the heart of every unborn baby in the world. This is truly an unprecedented event: the world’s second richest man giving the bulk of his immense fortune to the world’s richest man for the singular purpose of population control. Wow.

We ought not to forget who these two men are. It was Warren Buffett who funded the deadly abortion drug RU-486 and has sent suction machines to the Third World to make sure that the poor would not proliferate in his eugenic vision of a white-dominated world. He has an unfiltered bias toward population control and abortion. Mr. Gates is hardly less of an anti-lifer though his philanthropy tends to be better-disguised. He dedicates millions to Planned Parenthood and their abortion machine. He funds condom-distribution efforts, youth education and “reproductive health” schemes all of which are disguised in compassionate terms as AIDS programs and women’s rights initiatives. Needless to say, chastity is not his main concern. He is still young and has made it clear that his second career will be expending these vast resources in generous anti-life measures; he is a formidable force to reckon with.

There is nothing that fuels the anti-life movement more than money. It exists, perhaps symbolically so, on filthy lucre, and with this one mammoth financial windfall I believe the abortion-promoting elite have pushed the already-imbalanced life vs. death battle beyond the point of no-return. With Buffett’s billions Gates may be, in a strictly worldly sense, unstoppable. The culture of life simply cannot compete with this kind of money.

And this is precisely the point where the pro-life movement has needed to be for a long time: the point where all strictly human solutions are rendered impotent and we have no choice but to turn to an even greater power than the combined fortunes of the world’s two richest men. Simply put, they have money, we have God; which means we live in hope for the definitive solution to this mess and they live in fear of a stock market crash.

While we can never cease our human efforts to labor on behalf of the poorest of the world’s poor, the unborn, neither can we pretend that our best efforts towards a worldly solution to the anti-life movement will be sufficient. Only God can win this fight, presuming our cooperation. He is not impressed by the wealth of men; in fact, He scoffs at it. He is impressed, however, with humility and wants us on our knees every spare moment while we work for the unborn. Prayerful humility reminds us where our strength lies. It is not in money or in our efforts or cleverness. It is in Him.

The prayers of the faithful will eventually undo the culture of death in much the same way that the prayers of the faithful toppled the institutions of Communism. We must always, in all ways and at all times make it our priority to buffet the gates of death with assiduous prayers for deliverance from this present darkness and trust that the hell of Gates shall not prevail.

[dpwiener]

Why are you going out of your way to defend the indefensible? I don't care how much they spend on education or malaria prevention. The money to PP and the other culture-of-death organizations is blood money, and the light needs to be put on them.

If you want to attack the Gates Foundation for donating $33.5 million to Planned Parenthood, be my guest. I understand where you're coming from, and you're welcome to your opinion.

But trying to paint the entire Gates Foundation, including Buffett's new $37 billion contribution, as being solely intended to promote abortions is manifestly false. Indeed, it seems clear that the Gates Foundation spends vastly more to prevent children from dying (the Save The Children project), and even larger sums to prevent people of all ages from dying (the Malaria Vaccine Initiative). Far from aiding in "population control", the net results of grants from the Gates Foundation will be a significant increase in population.

I can understand your viewpoint that all these good works do not compensate for enabling more abortions via Planned Parenthood. But that does not justify lies about the purpose of the Gates Foundation or Buffett's contribution to it. Nor does it do you and other people who share your viewpoint any good to be caught spreading such hyperbolic nonsense. All it does is destroy your credibility.

Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer came up with a clever play on words ("The Hell of Gates") which he could not resist trying to turn into an article, and he was not about to let the actual facts of the matter get in his way.

[Pyro7480]

Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer came up with a clever play on words ("The Hell of Gates") which he could not resist trying to turn into an article, and he was not about to let the actual facts of the matter get in his way.

I wouldn't be so fast to claim "facts," when another charitable organization, named after Buffett's own deceased wife, is "a quiet force in the controversial area of population control" ("Warren Buffett Gives 30 B to Gates, 3.3B to promote RU486"

[Sun]

If they are really pro-"choice," why don't they give an equal amount to pro-life pregnancy crisis centers as they do to Planned Parenthood.

[dpwiener]

I wouldn't be so fast to claim "facts," when another charitable organization, named after Buffett's own deceased wife, is "a quiet force in the controversial area of population control" ("Warren Buffett Gives 30 B to Gates, 3.3B to promote RU486"

And what does that have to do with Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer's article? He attacked Buffett for a separate, much larger contribution to the Gates Foundation, and then falsely characterized it as "the world’s second richest man giving the bulk of his immense fortune to the world’s richest man for the singular purpose of population control".

Perhaps Euteneuer should have written an article excoriating Buffett for contributing money for RU486. That would have been plausible. But then of course he wouldn't have been able to title it "The Hell of Gates Shall Not Prevail".

And apparently he didn't want to let the facts get in the way of a neat title.

[mugs99]

Understand the Devil is LOL at you

I don't think so. Satan and his crew got laid off. All the good jobs for devils have been taken by the pious.
.

[tallhappy]

I notice that both of you have to harp on the term "singular purpose". I guess it is a way to avoid the issue.

OK, it is not the singular purpose. That was clearly hyperbole and literally true. What then?

And BTW, alleviation of poverty and improving health conditions in these scenarios definitely involve population control as a major aspect.

[tallhappy]

I'm a great believer in arguing from the facts.

But then, friend who did medical work in Africa noted that many children died when they were in the one to two year old age range. They died because as as soon as there was a new baby, the mother had to spend all her time on the new baby, leaving the toddler in the care of older children, or to fend for themselves....

This latter is absolutely anecdotal, hardly an argument from fact.

[tallhappy]

What kind of dork, who has ALL the money in the world to buy just about anything he wants, sits around in his mansion brooding over how to kill off the lower classes and non-whites in the Third World with Frankenstein depopulation schemes??? What kind of human being is that???

Yeah.

Problem is, he thinks he's doing good. He probably buys in to all the liberal clap trap taught to his wife at university.

It is odd the actual insular provincial nature of someone who has accomplished and earned so much.

[retMD]

This latter is absolutely anecdotal, hardly an argument from fact.

In this case, Pyro7480 asked why I was "defending the indefensible," which is a question about my personal motivation. Quite different from putting forth erroneous statements as fact.

[familyop]

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave $8.8 million to the Planned Parenthood Federation.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/women/12/11/health.women.gates.reut/

Bill Gates against repealing the inheritance tax
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_inheritance.html

"Gun-Control Group Changes Name, Keeps Agenda"
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5C%5CNation%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200106%5C%5CNAT20010615a.html
(and Bill is a contributor)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec97/guns_11-4.html
(more money for gun control from Gates and his father)

"Is Bill Gates a closet liberal?"
http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/01/cov_29feature.html
(Bill Gates for gun control, pro-abortion, etc.)

http://vikingphoenix.com/news/madminute/1997/mm970040.htm
(Gates on gun control)

The Left-Wing Billionaire Collectivist Pigs
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/25/191020.shtml

Billionaire Collectivist Pigs on a Roll
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/11/171315.shtml

"Bill Gates Is No Free Market Hero"
http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2000/12/000046.html

[tallhappy]

I see. You don't hold yourself to the same standard you hold others.

Really, what's your issue. You seem stuck on hyperbole. Is the hyperbole what bothers you?

[retMD]

No you don't see. If someone asks a question about my personal motivation, things I've heard and seen are fair game. If the author had said he was upset that any of Gates or Buffet's money went to contraception or abortion, that's personal feelings. If you can't see the difference between that, and stating something as fact when it isn't, I'm sorry for you.

[dpwiener]

OK, it is not the singular purpose. That was clearly hyperbole and literally true. What then?

[I assume you meant "not literally true".]

What it means is that Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer's entire thesis in this article falls apart. Two paragraphs down he states that "with this one mammoth financial windfall I believe the abortion-promoting elite have pushed the already-imbalanced life vs. death battle beyond the point of no-return. With Buffett’s billions Gates may be, in a strictly worldly sense, unstoppable. The culture of life simply cannot compete with this kind of money."

That might have been a plausible argument if Buffet had really combined his $37 billion contribution with Gates' existing $29 billion endowment "for the singular purpose of population control". But if only a few tens of millions of that money is going towards promoting abortions or other "population control", then there is no enormous financial imbalance in the battle over abortion, and nothing has been pushed "beyond the point of no return".

If Euteneuer wants to attack Gates for allocating less than one percent of his Foundation's resources to abortion and population control, he can plausibly do so. But he can't plausibly claim to be so overwhelmed by that relatively small amount of money that "all strictly human solutions are rendered impotent".

[tallhappy]

If you can't see the difference between that, and stating something as fact when it isn't, I'm sorry for you.

Yes, I see. Staying away from anything objective or factual and going for the emotional.

Avoiding at all costs the issue. Your observation about hyperbole has been duly noted. Is that all that bothered you?

[tallhappy]

If Euteneuer wants to attack Gates for allocating less than one percent of his Foundation's resources to abortion and population control, he can plausibly do so.

How about you? Is one percent enough to criticize? How about 10%? Or is there any amount large or small going to abortion you would criticize?

It seems that you have no problem with any money going to abortion but rather than stating this clearly instead harped.

[redgolum]

Buffet, like many on the left, truly believe the world would be a much happier place if most of us were never born. The scary thing is, when you get them talking long enough, is that they start to admit that "more harsh" methods might have to be used to save the world "for the children".

[redgolum]

Simply put, they have money, we have God; which means we live in hope for the definitive solution to this mess and they live in fear of a stock market crash.

Great line.

[Antoninus]

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, like so many other elitist giga-rich before them, are misanthropes at heart, living by the mantra "Hell is other people."

There is a reason Christ pointed out that it was more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle.

A man cannot serve God and Moloch. Gates and Buffett have chosen Moloch.



"One of the practices of the cult that worshipped Moloch was to sacrifice their children. The ancients would heat this idol up with fire until it was glowing, then they would take their newborn babies, place them on the arms of the idol, and watch them burn to death. One can't help but compare today's abortion massacre to the sacrifice of children by these ancient pagans. In both, innocent life is destroyed for the gain of the parent."

[Antoninus]

You should care about bearing false witness against thy neighbor. I hear it's on somebody's Top Ten list of Things Not To Do.

So you think it's a good thing for Gates and Buffett to fund Planned Parenthood, International Planned Parenthood, RU-486, and drives to keep partial-birth abortion legal?

[ShadowAce]

Is one percent enough to criticize?

This is the same situation as fallen priests. Everyone here was criticizing, lambasting, and condemning Catholic priests for their sins of molesting and assaulting young boys--and rightly so.

This condemnation came even though these priests undoubtedly served their community in worthwhile causes for over 99% of their ministry.

Yet when Gates/Buffet essentially do the same thing--in roughly the same percentage of contribution--they are lauded and we are told to ignore this tiny percentage, because the good they do outweighs the evil they do.

That argument doesn't work. Sorry. They are evil men, and I refuse to have anything to do with them.