>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