$100 coin of a non-American America
Scott in Pennsylvania writes:
Have you seen the new American Eagle Platinum $100 coin the U.S. Mint is issuing?
We can see what makes the union “more perfect”: no white guys!!
I doubt if that is what Gouverneur Morris had in mind.
LA replies:
It’s the absolutely standard iconography of today: nonwhites, white woman, no white man.
A further thing is, the minorities do not look like Americans. The black man looks like an African, not like a black American. The Indian looks like an Indian warrior on the plains; he is no more a citizen of the United States than I am a member of an Indian tribe. And the Chinese woman looks foreign and Chinese, not like a Chinese American. So it’s not just about changing America from white to nonwhite; it’s about erasing America. All that’s left of America is the blond white woman with her aspirational expression, looking upward and outward. What is she looking upward and outward to? To the final disappearance of whites and of America, the true fulfillment, the ultimate consummation.
And there’s something else here that perfectly fits the liberal script. In the liberal script, as I’ve written before, there are three characters: the liberal white, the non-liberal white, and the nonwhite. The liberal white embodies the virtue of liberal society, which is the inclusion of nonwhites. The non-liberal white embodies the evil principle which is opposed to the inclusion of nonwhites, and against which the good principle of inclusion shines. The nonwhite is the object of either liberal inclusiveness or non-liberal bigotry. The nonwhite is not a moral agent. He is the sacred object on whom the liberal white practices the virtue of non-discriminatory inclusion, and in doing so expresses the meaning and purpose of liberal society.
Now look again at the coin. Notice how the three nonwhites’ expressions and eyes are dull, inexpressive, inward looking. The Oriental woman is turned to the side, so we really don’t see her eyes. With the black man, we see his eyes, but they’re sort of staring ahead, not really directed at anything. His expression is a bit stupid. In contrast to the three nonwhites, the white woman’s face is lit up, full of self-awareness, almost ecstatic, her eyes wide and thoughtful, gazing at her distant goal. She is the only purposive being, the only active moral agent in the tableau. And, again, what is her goal, the sight of which lights up her face? The inclusion of nonwhites, and the disappearance of white men, the white race, and America.
LA writes:
Is this coin already being issued, or is still in the proposal stage? Who approves these things? Who makes the decision? Does Congress have anything to do with it? Is there anything we can do about this?
James P. writes:
The $100 coin with no white men on it reminded me of this picture:
And your words then remain apropos:
“Notice how virtually every person in the photo looks nonwhite. Notice how the photo centers on Obama, with all heads turned in unison toward him, giving him an image of mysterious power. In fact, it doesn’t even look like a photo of the United States of America. It looks like a photo of some nonwhite dictatorship. Which is what, in their heart of hearts, white liberals desire.”
LA replies:
Thank you for remembering and bringing to our attention that thread from May 2008, entitled “Caesar comes to the Capitol,” in which we discuss an exceptionally skillful New York Times photo of Obama, looking as though he were invested with divine power, graciously greeting employees in the Capitol building. I don’t think I had looked at it since then and had forgotten it. I recommend it.
James N. writes:
I agree completely with your analysis of the image, which will be the reverse of the 2009 one ounce platinum eagle, and will be issued on December 3.
They are issuing it only in proof, and with a mintage of only 8000 copies. Platinum bullion coins have been unpopular (despite the hype for platinum and palladium, there’s nothing like the old yellow fellow). Uncirculated platinum coins were not issued in 2009 and may not be issued in the future.
You’ll be delighted to know that “To Form a More Perfect Union” is the first of a six year series—those to come are:
2010—To Establish Justice
2011—To Insure Domestic Tranquility
2012—To Provide for the Common Defense
2013—To Promote General Welfare
2014—To Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity
As we know, full nationalization of the medical system won’t occur until 2013, perhaps that one (“Promote the General Welfare”) will show Obama with a stethoscope.
After the revolution, those 8000 platinum coins may become collector’s items, recalling the Ancien Regime of anti-white socialism—or perhaps not.
At $1643 per copy, you could buy them all for just a little over thirteen million little green slips of paper.
Scott in Pennsylvania writes:
The coin is to be released on Dec 3, so it’s well into production.
I found more information here.
It’s the first in a series of six coins all based on phrases from the Preamble to the Constitution. Notice that they mention the involvement of Chief Justice Roberts, but I doubt if he had anything to do with the design. The designer is one Susan Gamble and the engraver is Phebe Hemphill. [LA replies: two white women probably. I wonder if the white woman on the coin looks like Susan.]
See also this:
Designer Susan Gamble Engraver: Phebe Hemphill Description: The design is emblematic of the principle To Form a More Perfect Union, the first of six principles of American democracy found in the Preamble to the United States Constitution. It features four faces representing the diversity of our Nation with the clothing and hair weaving together to form a more perfect union.
LA replies:
Yeah, that’s what happens when women gain power apart from men, as a separate force unto themselves. They begin to pervert the symbols of republicanism, nationhood, and the Constitution into some sensuous notion of clothing and hair.
Karl D. writes:
I think everyone missed the conservative white male on the coin. It
is the tiny, dour-looking eagle head at the lower right. A symbol of traditional America now relegated to a small insignificant symbol facing the opposite way from our cast of characters.
LA replies:
Good catch, Karl. The little eagle doesn’t fit at all with the rest of the design. He’s a vestige of the old regime, just sort of stuck in there, not part of this flowing, sensuous construction of hair and clothing that represents the More Perfect Union. Also your choice of the word dour is perfect.
LA writes:
Here, sent by James N., is a photo of the designer, Susan Gamble:
She’s a bit full of herself, just like the white woman on the coin.
And here’s the engraver, Phebe Hemphill:
This coin is not a symbolization of the United States of America. It’s a symbolization of white feminism.
Hannon writes:
You wrote
“Yeah, that’s what happens when women gain power apart from men, as a separate force unto themselves. They begin to pervert the symbols of republicanism, nationhood, and the Constitution into some sensuous notion of clothing and hair.”
That is a good quote and it got me thinking that the design could also be interpreted as being emblematic of our yielding to commercialism. The overall aesthetic seems to embody a good portion of late U.S. advertising: from sexualized shampoo ads to the tearful, noble indigenous American.
I was taken by James N.’s suggestion of buying up the lot of the coins, all the designs. It could be done, right? If there is a restriction on the number of coins per customer then it could be carried-out as a cooperative of separate purchases. And then all brought to a foundry for, ah, re-education.
John B. writes:
Gamble and Hemphill’s creation of that coin—with its inclusion of the idealistic white woman just like them—points up what I said in the Amanda Knox thread: Liberalism is whites’ vanity, stupidly directed against their own race.
John B. continues:
And so we see that the politely-employed Gamble and Hemphill are Mansonite Bacchae themselves, working not with knives but with pencil and stylus toward a white holocaust they themselves expect somehow to survive. (Forgive the link to a Wikipedia article that is largely my own work.)
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 25, 2009 01:09 AM | Send
