God as Gould

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.

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.

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.

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 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)

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.

LUKE O’FARRELL

---