THE O'FARRELL COLUMN
2nd March 2008
God as Gould
Choking on Toxic Doses of Liberal Gnosis

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
from the history of communism. The crusade for equality smashes the
old order and the noble crusaders can then seize what they really
wanted all along: power. They don't want to benefit other people, they
want to benefit themselves. In modern Western politics, you benefit
yourself by lies and treachery, serving the anti-white gnostic
religion of liberalism.

Click here for O'Farrell archive
http://heretical.com/ofarrell/godgould.html