> God as Gould Choking on Toxic Doses of Liberal Gnosis
>
> THE O’FARRELL COLUMN
> 2nd March 2008
>
>     You can’t base a religion on 1+1=2. You don’t need faith to
> believe the obvious and you don’t value it. That’s why the world’s
> most successful religion is based on 1+1+1=1. In Christianity, the
> Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three persons but one God. It’s
> not an obvious truth, so you need faith to believe it and will value
> it. Christianity promises to supply unobvious truths, even paradoxical
> truths, things that you aren’t going to learn or guess for yourself.
> You can know what the Lord of the Universe thinks and wants! It’s a
> powerful appeal, but it has a flaw for some people: it isn’t exclusive
> enough. Christianity’s early competitor, gnosticism, made the same
> promise, but to a select few, not to everyone. By studying the right
> texts, sitting before the right teachers, performing the right
> ceremonies, initiates could achieve gnosis – secret knowledge. But
> sects offering gnosis to the select few don’t have to be explicitly
> religious. I think modern liberalism is gnostic. Look at the liberal
> dogma of racial and sexual equality. The common herd reject it, saying
> it contradicts common sense and everyday experience. They’re proving
> their banality – their inability to grasp and absorb a Higher Truth
> that transcends mundane reality.
>
>     Robert Mugabe, black dictator of Zimbabwe Ian Smith, last white
> prime minister of Rhodesia
>
>     Left: Robert Mugabe, noble black egalitarian
>     Right: Ian Douglas Smith, evil white racist
>
>     That may explain part of the fury that greeted the British
> politician Enoch Powell when he spoke out against mass immigration in
> 1968, warning that it would lead to communal division and race war. He
> was talking dreary common sense, stating the boringly obvious, and he
> was supported by the majority of the population. So how better to
> demonstrate one’s moral and intellectual superiority than by
> denouncing him? He and his dull-witted, bovine supporters could not
> grasp the Higher Truths of racial equality and enrichment by
> diversity. They proved their stupidity by opposing mass immigration,
> therefore they deserved to be punished by it. That was and remains the
> secret reasoning of many liberals. It relies both on believing that
> immigration is good and on knowing that immigration is bad. It’s
> Orwellian double-think, in other words: Nineteen Eighty-Four is
> describing liberal psychology. So is Animal Farm: “All animals are
> equal, but some are more equal than others” also encapsulates liberal
> thinking. Many liberals preach equality in the hope of practising
> inequality. A noble appeal to equality and justice is what got every
> ignoble Marxist dictator into power, from Stalin to Castro to Mugabe.
> But do you expect an apology from the liberals who helped put the last-
> named into power, turning prosperous white-run Rhodesia into the
> starving black-run hell-hole of Zimbabwe? If you do, you just reveal
> the dreariness and banality of your thinking. Imagine judging an
> ideology by its results! The disaster in Zimbabwe doesn’t disprove
> liberalism, because liberalism isn’t about doing good, it’s about
> being good.
>
>     There’s Only One Race...
>
>     Ludwig van Beethoven Snoop Doggy Dogg
>
>     Left: Snoop van Beethoven
>     Right: Ludwig Doggy Dogg
>
>     ...the Human Race!
>
>     William Shakespeare Maya Angelou
>
>     Left: William Angelou
>     Right: Maya Shakespeare
>
>     The bad white Rhodesians did not believe in racial equality; their
> golden-hearted liberal opponents did. And their liberal opponents
> proved the purity of their motives by being white themselves. Who but
> the golden-hearted can oppose their own race’s interests? In the end,
> of course, the blacks over whom liberals wailed have ended up far
> worse off, but they’ve served their purpose as pawns in a game of
> liberal self-gratification. The name of the game is narcissism:
> liberals are parading their superior virtue, compassion and
> righteousness before the world.
>
>     The same is true of the poor oppressed blacks of South Africa, who
> were rescued from evil Whitey to enjoy crime and poverty on a scale
> that would have been impossible under apartheid. But not all “white”
> liberals were opposing their own race’s interests in Rhodesia and
> South Africa: as I’ve pointed out often before, Jews led the liberal
> campaigns against both nations, driven by their age-old hatred of
> whites and the white Christian religion. Jews may have created
> Christianity as a weapon against whites, but it escaped their control
> and they began creating new Jew-controlled cults to weaken and
> supplant it, like Freudianism and Marxism. Those cults have also
> worked against the dangerous white invention of science as it tried to
> understand racial difference. It obviously exists and is very
> important, but the topic is not good for Jews.
>
>     Stephen Jay Gould, Jewish pseudo-scientist
>
>     “Trust me! I’m Jewish!”
>     Marxist charlatan S. J. Gould
>
>     That’s why the campaign to make it heretical has been run by
> Jewish Marxists like the late Stephen Jay Gould. In 1984, while
> lecturing in South Africa, Gould wrote an essay with the
> characteristically verbose title of “Human Equality Is a Contingent
> Fact of History”. Apartheid was much on his mind, of course: he said
> that his presence in South Africa helped him understand, “in a more
> direct way than ever before, the particular tragedy of the history of
> biological views about human races.” If he’d visited South Africa in
> 2004, he’d have seen another kind of tragedy: world-beating murder,
> rape and robbery statistics. South Africa is going the same way as
> Rhodesia and Gould, as one of the Highest Priests of the anti-racism
> cult, bears a heavy share of the blame. If you look at his essay, you
> see that it makes an explicit appeal to gnosis:
>
>         This column can be summarized in a single phrase, a motto if
> you will: Human equality is a contingent fact of history. Equality is
> not given a priori; it is neither an ethical principle (though equal
> treatment may be) nor a statement about norms of social action. It
> just worked out that way. A hundred different and plausible scenarios
> for human history would have yielded other results (and moral dilemmas
> of enormous magnitude). They didn’t happen. (Loc. cit., 5th August
> 1984)
>
>     Gould is offering liberals special knowledge, something only they
> are intelligent and insightful enough to understand and accept,
> something that will separate them from the common herd. The
> “contingent fact of human equality” is an unobvious truth, even a
> paradoxical one. Gould admits that there were “a hundred different and
> plausible scenarios”, but claims that somehow the scenario of equality
> was the one that won through. What were the odds against it? Gould
> doesn’t say, but they must have been high. The following year, he re-
> spun his verbal web around the theme:
>
>         Say it five times before breakfast tomorrow; more important,
> understand it as the center of a network of implication: “Human
> equality is a contingent fact of history.” (The Flamingo’s Smile:
> Reflections in Natural History, 1985)
>
>     It’s strange advice. Why five times? Why before breakfast? Well, I
> wonder if Gould was thumbing his nose at his goyish readers, because
> the passage is strongly reminiscent of an English classic that this
> famously well-read scholar must have been familiar with:
>
>     Alice talks to the White Queen
>
>     Alice with the White Liberal Queen
>
>         Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t
> believe impossible things.”
>
>         “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen.
> “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why,
> sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before
> breakfast.” (Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There,
> 1871, chapter 5)
>
>     Racial equality is an impossible thing, but millions of liberals
> manage to believe in it. They feel special for doing so, separate from
> those evil, unbelieving racists who prefer the evidence of their own
> eyes. The religious nature of liberalism can be seen in other ways:
> liberals preached Hell-by-nuclear-apocalypse in the 1970s and ’80s.
> Then the Soviet Union collapsed and liberals had to look for a new
> Hell to threaten us with. They found one in global warming. And now –
> praise Equality! – they’ve found a Messiah:
>
>         Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform.
> They don’t even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a
> grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and,
> just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its
> presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the
> triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great
> leaders I’ve heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is,
> at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place
> where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored
> inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its
> meaning and transcendence. (The American Prospect, 3rd January 2008)
>
>     L-R: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
>
>     The smile on the face of the tiger...
>     Two heads, one thought: Power!
>
>     Thus spake one Ezra Klein – prophet by name, prophet by nature. Is
> it a coincidence that Klein, like Gould, is Jewish? Nope. If
> something’s harmful for whites, Jews will take the lead in promoting
> it. Other Jews are backing Hillary Clinton and her anti-white agenda,
> hoping that whites don’t notice how the Democratic contest reveals the
> inherent contradictions of liberalism. Both Obama’s and Clinton’s
> supporters are firm believers in human equality, but the former want
> blacks to be more equal than whites, while the latter want women to be
> more equal than men. You can see how the contradiction is resolved ...
>
> read more »