|
|
|
Fly
Me to the Moon, or Whites Need Not Apply
Edmund
Connelly
June
3, 2009
I
don’t think my previous column could have been more timely. Titled On the Visual Displacement
of the White Race, it appeared May 15. One week later, major news
media reported that President Obama had chosen a former astronaut and Marine
general to lead NASA.
This
move certainly bolsters my point about the displacement of White men in
positions that combine excellence in both technical innovation and high status:
aeronautics. I showed an ad that Microsoft ran in The Atlantic Monthly — two pages with an
unmistakably clear message: White males need not apply to future rocket
programs, as engineers or astronauts. The future in this field—as the photo
shows—belongs to the usual multicultural hopefuls—women, Hispanics, Asians and
most particularly Black males.
Microsoft's Image of a Future Rocket Scientist
The
nominee for NASA administrator is
Charles
Bolden, who has four shuttle missions under his belt, including
two as mission commander.
Charles
Bolden in his younger years
Interestingly, Obama chose a White woman as Deputy NASA Administrator Lori Garver, blocking out any White men at the very top of America’s space program. This comes in stark contrast to the historical make-up of all levels of NASA going back to the 1950s. The Gemini and Apollo programs were essentially White male preserves, from the Mission Control Specialists to the astronauts themselves.
This was accurately portrayed in Ron Howard’s 1995 film Apollo 13. One might
express surprise that the NAACP didn’t lodge a complaint against the nearly
all-White male main cast. And when women did appear, they were in supporting
roles as wives and mothers. Clearly, things have changed in America since
then.
Unlike
other prestigious fields like law, medicine and academia, in which women and
minorities have made impressive strides in the last forty years, aviation has
remained solidly in the hands of White males. Among commercial airline pilots,
for example, only about 2% are women,
with Blacks accounting for far less than that. Considering that the astronaut
pool had traditionally been drawn from pilots, it became a statement when NASA
began to routinely present its unchanging mix of a multicultural crew of shuttle
pilots, mission specialists and payload operators. Here, for example, is the
crew that was lost in the 1986 Challenger explosion:
The 1986 Challenger Crew
NASA
was not the only prominent arena in which White males took a hit last week: On
May 26th, President Obama nominated a Puerto Rican American woman to fill a
vacancy on the Supreme Court left by a retiring White man. As Kevin MacDonald
noted, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor “is yet another marker
in the march toward the dispossession of Whites in America.”
As
I argued two weeks ago, the visual displacement of Whites goes hand in hand with
our actual displacement. Surely I am not the only one to notice this. Look, for
instance, at the photo chosen by the National Guard in one of its recruitment
ads:
Doubtless millions of Americans have observed over the years that the faces in posters for their banks have changed, as has the composition of student photos from their alma maters, even if the student body is still heavily White. As someone I know commented, “Even the WASPiest prep schools now trumpet diversity über alles.”
Incredibly,
even a new biopic of famed singer Frank Sinatra might feature African American
actor Jamie Foxx as “Old Blue
Eyes,” as reported by Political Cesspool host James Edwards last
week. (The free download of the show may still be available here.)
Another friend summed up this process well:
Another subtle aspect of modern TV ads is the fact that whenever whites appear in ads with nonwhites, it is always in a subservient position: black boss — white workers, black doctor — white patient, etc. Also, you will see blacks explaining things to whites in ads, or blacks being right and whites having it all wrong. You never see the reverse. In a group context, blacks are always out front with whites in the background.
It
is an intentional and dedicated campaign designed to reduce whites to
subordinate status. I believe that it has a very psychologically
debilitating effect on young whites who are continually exposed to it and don't
understand that it is just a deliberate attempt to beat them
down.
These
memes have sunk deep into the American psyche by now. Thus we now have the
phenomenon of the “Numinous Negro,”
which I wrote about a month ago. There we saw that the word “numinous” is a
Roman term for "the presiding divinity . . . of a place." It also means
"spiritually elevated." Accordingly, the Numinous Negro presides over America,
“and contact with him elevates us spiritually.”
This
shared cultural assumption is everywhere now (despite the lack of any real
objective reasons for it). Consider that even the Corn Refiners Association, in
trying to counter negative associations with their product, has appealed to
prevailing “wisdom.” Their site tells
us that “in the summer of 2008, the Corn Refiners Association launched a
multimedia advertising and public relations campaign ‘Changing the Conversation
about High Fructose Corn Syrup.’” Let’s unpack this professionally made
commercial.
In the video,
the viewer is positioned in a handsome kitchen, looking out open doors onto the back
yard where kids are celebrating. On our right we see a Black woman pouring a
container of punch into a glass. A white woman approaches and chides her for her
lack of concern for her children’s health, as the drink contains corn syrup.
Unconcerned, the Black mother continues pouring, stating confidently that it’s
made from a natural ingredient, corn.
The
White woman is left confused by this air of authority and quickly changes the
topic to fashion. The point is that the makers of this ad felt that by placing
their product in the hands of the Black woman, it would be associated with
something positive and superior. The Black mother triumphed and by association
so should corn syrup over sugar.
Admittedly, this is a trivial example by itself. But when the relationships in the ad are repeated ad nauseum in the media, they doubtless have an important effect on people's attitudes.
Allow
me one more point about the larger context. Thus far I’ve discussed visual
images in which it was mostly Blacks replacing Whites in both real and imagined
scenes. The paradox here is that there is no real-world corresponding growth in
power among individual Blacks or Black groups to even begin to account for their
astounding relative rise in the last two or three decades. They’ve amassed few
noteworthy fortunes, they control few major enterprises on their own, and they
have precious few professional and business networks to boast of. Even
with their prominence in sports, music and, more recently, film, they own next to
nothing when it comes to movie studios or sports teams. Even when it comes to
the NAACP, Blacks were not responsible for creating it, or staffing it for
decades. So what is going on?
The
answer should be familiar to TOO
readers: The overwhelming credit for boosting the image of Blacks goes to their
old allies, American Jews. On one level, as
I’ve written
about, Jews have fought anti-Semitism by supporting the black
struggle against racism. I then went on to argue that:
This
account is simplistic. While it does refute claims of totally altruistic motives
for Jewish agitation on behalf of blacks, it fails to appreciate the larger
goals of Jewish Americans. They were not merely interested in defeating
anti-Semitism so that they could participate comfortably in American life. They
were waging a massive war on Majority Americans, the results of which we see all
around us today.
Blacks,
then, have been used as foot soldiers in one front of this war. Or, if you
prefer a stage reference, they have been used as props in a war not of their
making. In any case, as Kevin MacDonald
noted on this
site last week, for Jews, “making alliances with other minority groups has been
a critically important part” of their effort to unseat Majority Whites as
primary power holders in America.
This
has also been noted on the other side of the Atlantic, as evidenced by the calm,
rational prose of John Tyndall of the British National Party. The Occidental Quarterly Online recently
ran a 2004 disquisition of
Tyndall’s thoughts on
The Jewish
Question. His words ring true.
Tyndall
described this awakening in The Eleventh
Hour:
Bit
by bit, it started to come home to me, in the form of incontrovertible evidence,
that there was present in Britain and around the world a definite Jewish network
wielding immense influence and power — through money, through politics and
through its strong foothold, in some sectors amounting to virtual monopoly, in
the mass media. . . .
Then
what of the uses of Jewish wealth and power? I set to work studying the
political orientation of Jewish writers in the press, Jewish book-publishers,
Jewish political leaders, political philosophers and academics. I investigated
the various causes to which Jewish money was being donated.
The
truth was inescapable. In not one single case could I find any prominent,
powerful and influential Jewish personage who identified himself or herself with
any cause complementary to the interests of the British Nation. . . . Quite the
contrary, every cause inimical to these things seemed to have Jewish
participation and backing. Looking back to the political arguments I had had
earlier, it now occurred to me, as it had not done at the time, that the most
vociferous and aggressive opponents of all I believed in had been
Jews.
Then,
in a line that resonates with so much of what has been written in this TOO space over the last year, Tyndall
concludes, “The wrath and hatred of organized Jewry is a mountain that stands in
the path of every movement of enlightened racial patriotism wherever one cares
to look in the world, but in particular among nations of White European
pedigree.”
This,
then, is behind the rushing sound of air we hear as Whites vacate positions of
power in America and people from other ethnic groups fill them. While Obama may
be the most prominent example of this, it is also quite clear that
he is a mere
prop, as much as are the dark faces we see in so many commercials.
VDARE’s
Peter Brimelow, for one, understands this unprecedented process of displacement.
“Obama,” he writes, “doesn’t have
43% of his appointees white Protestants, in fact I don’t think even 4% are white
Protestants. So you have to ask yourself what’s going on here. How can the
founding stock of the country have so completely lost control? They could
reasonably regard the Obama administration as kind of an occupation government:
a coalition of united minorities that succeeded in uniting the minorities
and dividing the majority.”
Does
that sound like a familiar strategy?
Political
philosopher
Carl Schmitt was
right when he years ago wrote: “It’s not only you who chooses
your enemy, it’s more often your enemy who chooses you.” Tyndall makes a similar
but more specific
claim,
arguing that “though we may do everything possible to avoid conflict with Jewry,
Jewry—or at least its politically organised elements—[is] determined on conflict
with us.”
So
don’t waste too much time worrying that somehow Obama and other Blacks are
conspiring to outcompete you, or that Hispanics like Sotomayor will leave you
in their dust.
Your real rival—one that has a two-thousand-plus year record of impressive victories—is the one identified by Mr. Tyndall. So know this, Mr. White Man: Dispossession is coming to a place near you!
Edmund Connelly
(email
him) is a freelance
writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for
The Occidental
Quarterly.
