Fly Me to the Moon, or Whites Need Not Apply
By Edmund Connelly
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.