|
|
On the Visual Displacement of the White Race
Edmund Connelly
May 15, 2009
I’ve been observing and studying the fall of Western man for about two
decades now. For a number of years I could not really understand the
process, but eventually I caught on. I’ve shared my fears and observations
about our displacement with friends and family in a haphazard way but it was
not until this winter that I systematically reached out to try to warn them.
More than the election of the first African American president last fall, it
was the sudden implosion of the economy that convinced me that my minimum
duty was to at least pass on my estimation that a few basic measures of
preventive self defense were in order.
Before talking to anyone,
however, I pondered the likely response to my warnings. Like almost every
White racialist out there, I’ve experienced rejection from nearly every
White I’ve talked to. Why this is so remains a mystery to me, for the
evidence of White decline is everywhere. Sure, humans are prone to denial,
but how can it continue this far past the obvious?
Denial or not, I resolved to
go one step beyond the writing I’ve been doing to actually talk to specific
friends and family members about the elevated risks they face simply by
being a White person in today’s America. Of particular concern are the naïve
young women in my family.
Looking back on it, the
impetus for this personal campaign probably came from
a
column
by the editor of
The Occidental Quarterly, Greg Johnson. Mr. Johnson
used the occasion of the release of a low-keyed video about race in America
to ponder precisely what I’m talking about. In his words: “When a White person awakens to our race’s peril,
the first impulse—and the first duty—is to try to awaken others. But where
to begin?”
His decision was to “highly
recommend Craig Bodeker’s masterful 58 minute
documentary
A Conversation about Race. It is an ideal first step on the
road to racial awakening.”
Taking this advice, I started
there, ordering a copy for my brother in Virginia. A blue collar man, he’s
been hard hit his whole life by stagnant or declining wages, in part due to
the massive immigration—legal and illegal—of laborers with little education.
Since he’s a nice guy who is at least superficially willing to listen to my
ideas on race, I figured he’d react favorably.
I sent him a copy of the
documentary, which he acknowledged receiving, but in subsequent e-mails and
phone conversations, he’s never brought up the subject. I have to assume
then that he simply has chosen not to watch it. And it’s not that he doesn’t
like to watch TV. On the contrary, he’s one of those guys who watches hours
and hours of it after work and on weekends. I can always get a pretty good
idea of what the latest popular sayings or phrases are just by listening to
him.
Well, my brother was just a
start. Being Irish America of a certain generation, I’ve got a good number
of relatives both back in my hometown and spread out across America. Cousin
Mike, for one, is about as good as they come. A few years younger than me,
he never went to college but has worked hard enough all these years to allow
his horse-loving wife to be a stay-at-home mom. (It helps that land and home
prices in small town America are still low.)
As a self-employed
businessman—a guy who works with his hands but also has to focus on the
bottom line—Mike is probably a little more serious about events than the
average guy his age. That’s why I approached him in a unique way. In
essence, I made him an offer: “Mike, I’ve got cash in a bank that might be
going under someday soon and I can’t be sure federal insurance will mean a
lot at that point. Thus, I’d rather use some of that money to buy something
here and now that could make a big difference in our lives: I’m willing to
pay for whatever firearms and ammo you would feel comfortable owning.”
Because Mike knows how to use
dangerous tools and has a fairly sharp sense of what human beings can be
capable of in a pinch, I thought it better that he rather than more innocent
relatives be in charge of legal firearms. Unfortunately, I never heard back
from him.
Now before you get worried
about this talk of firearms, let me state directly what worries me most: the
chance that our society will even more extensively allow our underclass to
blame Whites for whatever perceived misdeeds the underclass feels we are
responsible for, and worse, to tacitly allow them to act on their sense of
resentment or vengeance more than they already do. And it’s not even the
carjacking or street crime that most worries me; it’s the rape.
If you’re reading this column,
you don’t have to be reminded of the sources for statistics on this kind of
thing. We’ve got the hard science from the likes of
Philippe Rushton,
Richard Lynn, and
Richard Hernnstein and Charles Murray.
Further, we have the aggregated figures on the highly elevated rates of
Black crime as documented in
The Color of Crime,
which comes from the same team that has consistently brought us the race
realism writing of Jared Taylor and his writers at
American Renaissance.
VDARE.com
has a veritable stable of race realist writers, while the more courageous
individual can go to a place like
David Duke’s website
for unvarnished discussions of the problems we Whites face—and the people
who are mainly responsible for our plight. Or you could visit
Western Voices World News or maybe
Ziopedia.
(For the more aurally oriented, one might turn to James Edwards’ radio show
The Political Cesspool,
which was just mentioned in a front-page story in
The London Times.)
My point is this—there are
many good sources for finding out about the scourge we Whites generally face
today in America (and Canada, England, etc.) And like I said, one of the
most fearful is Black-on-White rape. In addition to a brother, I have four
sisters, and among the six of us we have a lot of young White girls, mostly
blondes. Maybe now you can see why I’m worried.
We race realists all have
something that triggered our escape from the imposed lies about racial
equality and the ideology of unique White wickedness. For me, it was
certainly the
Wichita Massacre, in which five young Whites
were raped and/or murdered by two Black men in a horrendous attack—one which
our national media utterly ignored. For others it may have been the
Knoxville slayings,
or maybe the way the news media focus far more on the alleged crimes of
White men, as in the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax
or the
Jena 6 fraud.
In any case, you readers know
the score about interracial crime, which, as Greg Johnson tells us,
Bodeker discusses
openly in his race documentary:
In the United States in 2005, 37,000 White women were raped by Blacks,
while in the same period “fewer than ten” Black women were raped by Whites.
(The odd locution “fewer than ten” rather than a specific number leads me to
think that the number could be zero, but that the statistical margin of
error is ten.) Bodeker then makes another brilliant point: according to the
conventional wisdom on racism,
we are
supposed to be worried if, on any given day, a White person somewhere in
America is harboring racist attitudes towards Blacks; but if one is
concerned that, on the very same day, one hundred White women are being
raped by Blacks, that is racism most foul.
What I’m trying to do here is
understand why what is obvious to me and other race realists is so
stubbornly resisted by my friends and family. I mean, what more than is
already happening will it take to wake them from their stupor? As an
academic, my approach has been through the written word, often in ways that
might test the patience of the general reader. Still, I think even my
academic prose is accessible and, because it is almost exclusively focused
on popular culture, of interest to a wide audience.
For instance, my
thirty-something columns
at this site cover a broad range of popular culture. My longer works in
The Occidental Quarterly do the
same but in far more depth. The most popular essay to date seems to be one
on television—The Jews of Prime Time.
Others can be read
here,
here
and
here
(this year expect three more essays in my "Understanding Hollywood"
series).
My focus on Hollywood comes
from the common assumption—heavily supported by an immense body of
scholarship—that media influence the way a population thinks and acts. For
example, a major thrust of Kevin MacDonald's
recent work
(see also
here
and
here)
is on showing the power of culture to shape attitudes and control behavior.
As he says, "It's the culture, stupid."
And it is not only media like
film, television and newsprint that do this. It can also be advertising,
even in ways that are not directly related to the bottom line.
For instance, the blatantly
anti-White male series run by Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) a few years back
is unmistakable in its disdain for traditional White society. The conceit is
that a nonthreatening and personable Black man in khaki trousers is superior
to the crowd of stuffy White (non-Jewish) male bankers who are "from the
last century." Have a look.
As we are introduced to a series of White male faces, the narrator intones,
“They’re out of touch. They’re old fashioned. They’re greedy.” In contrast,
the audience consists of “regular people.” You know, Black women, Pakistani
immigrants, and most of all our Black male emcee. The White males are
imbeciles — one stating "I'm clueless and rich."
Another commercial
in the series has the herd of White male bankers threatening to jump from
the roof of the bank because super banker Bill (the African American) has
introduced wildly successful new banking products that the White bankers had
never dreamed of. The ad closes with the bankers’ wives being hydraulically
lifted to the roof to berate their emasculated banker husbands.
In perhaps
the most offensive version,
our Black banker Bill explains the source of WaMu’s success. Taking a secret
elevator down into the basement, he reveals his secret: “Here at WaMu we
have the bankers’ pen. It’s simple—If these stodgy old bankers think an idea
is wrong, then we know it’s right.” When the pen of White bankers gets riled
up over the new business practices Bill has overseen, he placates them by
having a large champagne dispenser lowered into the cage, just as baby
calves are bottle fed out in the barn.
(Far be it from me to gloat
over the failures of multiculturalism, but I did notice that last fall WaMu
went bankrupt.
I guess Black banker Bill’s ideas were not that applicable in the real
world.)
I know my friends and
relatives are watching such advertising all the time. In addition to a
similar message of White displacement being preached at all levels of
education (ever look at the textbooks your kids are assigned?), the meaning
is crystal clear. Why the denial, then?
Honestly, this kind of image
is now part of the furniture that is found in the American living room.
Think about Jon Stewart’s
The Daily Show
for starters. For many Americans — especially
young adults, he sets the stage for viewing reality. Now, I
know what the response of the vast majority of Whites is to anti-White
images: as long as they are funny,
anything goes. It doesn't’ matter how vile, untrue or damaging the
images are, just as long as they are funny. Needless to say, Blacks, Jews,
women, and a string of other minorities long ago learned that humor was one
of the most effective ways to attack, belittle and disenfranchise a target
group. Whites in general, however, are clueless.
For instance, The Daily
Show recently ran a skit called
White in America—the Children,
which operated on a number of levels. The most basic message was that
Whites’ days as majority Americans were numbered. Stewart opens the skit by
announcing that “President Obama was elected on a message of change. But is
that change good for everyone?” Light-skinned Black Larry Wilmore adopts the
role of reporter, introducing one set of Americans at risk: “There is one
group of Americans who are now facing the biggest challenge in their
history: White people.”
This “once proud race” faces
dispossession at the hands of Blacks, Asians “and most rapidly, Latinos”
(the transition being represented in the skit by White minivans being
replaced by Black cars, Asian motorcycles and low-rider Mexican American
cars). In a faux-serious interview, Wilmore faces a group of eight White
children and tries to make them understand that their future is bleak. The
children—brainwashed already by a steady diet of multiculturalism—are not
only in denial about their prospects, they positively welcome the coming
change.
The only blonde young girl,
for instance, testily responds to observations about her group’s decline,
blurting out “We’re not upset in any way, shape or form.” More realistic
about race realities, interviewer Wilmore solemnly informs them: “You will
be.”
Of course he is absolutely
right. Displacement and loss of power have been utterly devastating to
groups throughout history. Think how well Americans Indians have fared. Or
modern Palestinians. To fail to be upset by such a prospect goes far beyond
mere denial, it seems to me. To give up power in a situation where the
groups who inherit power (particularly Jews, Blacks, and Latinos) have
historical grudges against Whites seems the ultimate folly.
Showing his well-rehearsed
multicultural response to the “inevitable” coming changes in America, a
White boy quizzes Wilmore, asking “What if this happens and only good change
occurs in America?” What kind of Kool-Aid are such young White children
already drinking? Perhaps it's understandable that White children believe
these things. The truly pathetic part is that such childish fantasies of
about the future of Whites in multicultural America are believed by White
adults.
Again, I want to stress the
pervasiveness of such images of
White dispossession. As mentioned, I’ve written extensively about
Hollywood’s scripted replacement of Whites, but you can find it just about
everywhere. The venerable Atlantic
Monthly, for instance, has for some years now been running prominent ads
from the top corporations in America—Microsoft, UPS, Lockheed Martin,
etc.—that visually celebrate the coming diversity they see in our future.
Aerospace giant Lockheed
Martin, for example, envisions their future rockets being built by a whole
range of races — completely unlike the real history of
rocketry, where White males did all the thinking, designing and building.
Lockheed Martin ad with future rocket scientists
Microsoft took an even more
blatant approach to the same idea, announcing: “We see a rocket scientist.”
In the picture, a Black youth is the future rocket scientist. (The odds of
someone from a population with an average IQ of 85 producing a rocket
scientist are
miniscule.) Around him are an Asian boy, a presumably Hispanic
boy, a mulatto girl, and two White girls. Real White male rocket scientists
and astronauts need not apply.
Microsoft ad: “We see a rocket
scientist”
To be sure, NASA itself has been part of this lunge toward diversity, scrapping its all-White male pool of Apollo astronauts for a predictably diverse cast, such as we see here in a crew photo of the space shuttle astronauts who died in the 1986 Challenger explosion:
Space Shuttle Challenger
Crew
Space Shuttle Columbia Crew, with Israeli flag
(Nearly two decades later, the
multicultural look was still in force at NASA, though the second time a
shuttle orbiter was lost, an Israeli was among the crew. This made for a
good photo op with both nations' flags.)
My favorite ad is another
Lockheed Martin creation, this one celebrating the joys of diversity in
(allegedly) fostering unique perspectives and innovation
— which
is why the world has seen such stunning fighter jets conceived and produced
in places ranging from Mozambique to Polynesia to Ecuador. Here are the
people who will be responsible for Lockheed Martin’s future jets. You go,
girls!
Lockheed Martin ad
featuring non-White female space scientists
The gauntlet laid down for the
White race is formidable: demographics,
immigration, affirmative action, White
self-hate, and the
relentless efforts
of Jewish groups to eliminate Whites as rivals for world domination.
But I don’t know. Maybe I’m
wrong. Maybe there is room for optimism, such as that displayed by VDARE’s
Steve Sailer, who recently wrote, “The
interaction of
government-sponsored
non-traditional immigration and
“disparate impact” affirmative action constitutes a doomsday machine the
will rapidly dispossess, and probably seriously radicalize, White America.
It’s a
recipe for revolution.”
Obviously, I don’t see our
dispossession as positive, but I sure would be happy if Sailer is right
about a coming White revolution. Sadly, I just don’t see it—and the
non-responses of my friends and family discussed above strikes me as
typical.
No doubt what really turns
people off is when I persist in discussing what I see as the root cause of
White dispossession: Jewish activism. We at
The Occidental Observer have
focused on this cause since the inception of the website last year. I insist
on this because I believe political philosopher
Carl Schmitt was right: “It’s not only you who
chooses your enemy, it’s more often your enemy who chooses you.”
Edmund Connelly is a freelance writer, academic,
and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for
The Occidental Quarterly.
