This is a page from
the official, non-commercial, and nonprofit web site of “Mark Andrew Dwyer” whose only goal
is educating and informing.
Although all material contained or referenced on this page is
copyrighted either by “Mark
Andrew Dwyer” or by other parties (all pictures are from the
Internet and are copyrighted by third parties), it is being offered here solely as an educational tool to increase
understanding of global economics and social justice issues for 'fair use' of
copyrighted material as provided in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
Please, send your
comments to readerswrite@yahoo.com. (See also readers’ comments after
the article.)
By “Mark Andrew Dwyer”
February 1, 2009 (last updated February 4, 2009, minor additions February 5, 2009)
On Friday afternoon January 30, 2009,
when most working Americans were
readying themselves for the Super Bowl
weekend and not watching the news, the
"leadership" of the Grand Old Party
"elected" the first black chairman of
the Republican National Committee, Mr.
Michael Steele.
As if electing the first black president
of the U.S., who would have no chances
of winning the presidential contest if he weren't black, wasn't enough humiliation
to the white majority of the American
electorate or didn't sooth enough
Left's conspirators in their arrogant
imposition of power on the American
nation. (Tell me more about "white
privilege".)
It is clear to me that the following
were the most important factors that let
to the "election": cowardice, naïveté,
losership, betrayal, hostility towards
whites that borders with racism, and the
disconnect between GOP's "leadership"
("dictatorship" or "despotism" seem like
more adequate descriptors here) and its
base.
Cowardice
It appears that, in the times when
displacement of American white majority
with mostly imported minorities and
their countless children is on its way,
the GOP's "leadership" has been
paralyzed with the prospect of being
branded "racist" due to their
willy-nilly criticism of the first black
president of the U.S. Now, not only will
they be able to begin and end each
public address with "We are not racists"
and "We have many black friends"
semi-apologies, but also they can claim
that "We have a black chairman that we
all report to".
For if the first black Republican
criticizes the first black president,
this is not the "white" party that does
so, and all the cowards in the Party's
establishment may feel secure not having
to expose their white-looking faces to
the attacks of the militant ethnocentric
lobbies.
Naïveté
It's mind boggling that, despite decades
of negative experiences with pondering
to "minority" votes, GOP's "leadership"
keeps naively stipulating that their
gestures towards the "under-represented"
will translate onto substantial
electoral gains. Nothing further from
the truth. For every "minority" vote
that they gain that way there are
several white votes that they lose.
One of the best documented examples of
the falsity of the above stipulation was
then Gov. Pete Wilson's (GOP) quest to
end California's sponsorship of millions
of illegal aliens. Despite grim
prognoses of how this "anti-Latino"
initiative would fail and how it would
hurt GOP in terms of lost votes of
Hispanic voters, and despite all the
"mainstream" media assaults on it, the
Proposition 187 that Wilson was the main
champion of, passed with almost 2/3
majority of vote, and Wilson won his
re-election on a landslide. (So much for
losing elections because of not being
"open" enough to minorities.)
Losership
To me, a classic example of a
predictable loser who
thought that nice (towards "minorities")
guys finish first was Sen. John McCain.
I remember his occurrence in Barbara
Walter's show a few days before the
election, when Whoopi Goldberg
asked him if, because of his apparent devotion to
the letter of the U.S. Constitution, she
will be forced to go back to plantation.
McCain, who could at least expressed his
surprise with such an insidious, if not
assaultive, question, answered: "That's
a very good question". It was obvious
that he not only was unwilling to accept
the challenge from Ms. Goldberg, but
also he did not want to show a shade of
appearance of being combative.
McCain lost because he was unable or
unwilling to fight, as if he knew of
historic inevitability of Obama's
election. He was incapable of
confronting a black adversary, as though
he believed that a black is a Godsend. Now, the entire GOP's
"leadership" seems ready to follow his
steps in order to open a "new chapter"
in the Republican Party with the
"election" of Mr. Steele, an event that
they refer to as the "dawn of a new
party". Will you be surprised seeing
them lose, just like McCain had lost?
I will be not. They are about as good in
defending GOP's from loss of power to
arrogant (and often cheating) Left and
assertive minorities as
they have been in defending our country
from multi-million man invasion of
illegal aliens from Mexico and other
Third-World countries.
Betrayal
Even if Mr. Steele is the most gifted
Republican who has all the prerequisites
expected of the successful party leader
(which I doubt), how do we know that he
is willing and able to wholeheartedly
and unreservedly represent the white
majority and defend it from assaults of
other racial and ethnic groups? I am
skeptical in this respect.
Take, for instance, Gen. Colin Powell.
He betrayed his "conservative"
principles and the party that moved him
up to the highest honors in the U.S.
Army and federal government by choosing
genetic kinship over loyalty in his endorsement
of then candidate Barak Obama's
candidacy. Inexplicably, right after
that betrayal, the GOP's "leadership"
doesn't apparently think we took enough
risk in this matter.
How do they know that the newly elected
black chairman will not follow Powell's
example at the time of crisis and
turmoil? Or, perhaps, those who have
engineered his "election" know damn well
what he is likely to do and this is
exactly why they arranged things this
way in order to make GOP irrelevant for
decades to come.
If the latter were true (I would
hypothesize so) then we, the white
majority, are being betrayed by those
who are supposed to preach and practice
conservatism and preservation of the
American status quo. And my hypothesis
explains a lot, indeed.
Under such assumption, it becomes clear
why GOP has been lured into opening
itself to "under-represented" minorities
despite such politics being clearly and
factually suicidal for the entire party;
the engineers of that opening needed it
in order to achieve one of their main
objective: to submit once powerful party
of white majority to the "minority"
rule.
If this is not betrayal then nothing is.
Anti-white hostility
When a predominantly Hispanic school
district elects a white board member
then, according to a recent court
ruling, it's a manifestation of racism
(see [1]). For decades, courts and
lawmakers bent the U.S. Constitution and
gerrymandered voting district so that a
majority of black voters can always
elect a black Congressman. (Now, the
non-white Hispanic were granted the same
right by the court.) But when it
comes to filling the post of the GOP's
chair, all of the sudden election of
member of Party's small minority that
accounted for about 5 percent of votes
in the recent presidential elections is
being praised are the right and just
thing to do. Aren't we entitled to being
led by someone who can relate to us and
our needs? Or these are only the
non-whites who have this inalienable
right to be led by someone who looks
like them?
If you are not screaming "Hypocrisy!"
and "Double standard!" then, perhaps,
you deserve what you are getting now.
And to all those who are ready to pull
out their "white supremacy" argument,
take a note of this.
No major nation, except for those with
white majority, ever elected, in a
democratic process, a member of a
different race to its highest posts. So
if it is OK for the Chinese in China to
exercise the "Chinese supremacy", for
Hindu in India to exercise the "Indian
supremacy", for blacks in Africa to
exercise the "black supremacy", for
Latinos in South America to exercise the
"Latino supremacy" then why the heck we,
the white majority, cannot maintain our
white majority and the political power
that is a result of it, in our own
country that we and our ancestors have
build from scratch?
From a wider perspective, the election
of Chairman Steele seems to go along
with the engineered demographic makeover
of the U.S. There is a good reason why
millions of "minorities" flood and
populate our country under the
"watchful" eye of the federal
authorities, while their leaders openly
demand that "All whites go back to
Europe." (They don't insist that we take
the wealth and the economy that we
created here with us, though.) There is
a good reason why Sarah Palin, an
extremely popular and unapologetically
white authentic Republican, the
quintessence of American and a model of
a family woman, had not even been
seriously considered for the RNC
chairmanship.
These events are parts of a large-scale process of whites' displacement that will end with nothing short of submitting the current white majority to the dictatorship of other races. They can only be explained with this country rulers' anti-white hostility (the anti-Palin hostility has been a perfect example of) that borders with racism.
Disconnect with the
Party's base
Anyone who claims that GOP's "election"
had anything to do with a democratic
process is a liar or a naive ignorant.
After the Republican Party, disheartened
with Sen. McCain's nomination, got
electrified by emergence of Sarah Palin
(which event, if it weren't for Charlie
Gibson's condescending "interview" with
her that swayed away millions of
prospective voters and showed other
"mainstream" media hyenas how to attack
her, would secure the
White House for a Republican
administration), pulling out of
literally nowhere a personality like Mr.
Steele seems particularly irrational, if
not outright absurd.
My colleague, who showed me his "Life
Member" card of the Republican National
Committee, told me that no one even
polled him, never mind allowing him to
cast a vote, as to who should be the
chair of the RNC. (Tell me more about
the democratic elections.)
The GOP's "leadership" seems to believe
that they need to reach out to
"Liberals" and
"minorities" in order to have a chance
in 2012 presidential rematch. But in
their shortsighted, if not treasonous,
attempts they seem to neglect almost
totally the strength and unrealized
potential of the existing, albeit
apathetic, base that disapproves of the
GOP's "me too" politics (like, for
instance, repeated attempts to pass the
amnesty for illegal aliens or to
redistribute taxpayers' money among low
income individuals in order to secure
their votes, or to expand the size and
power of the federal government). After
all, they joined the Republican Party
and not a generic copy or an
imitation of the Democratic Party.
About half of those identifying
themselves as Republican voters stayed
at home last November. They yielded to
apathy and hopelessness that then
candidate McCain and GOP's "leadership"
projected on them. Should someone
energize them to the point that they
would go to the polling places, then
candidate Obama and his left-leaning
mentors would have no chances of scoring
the White House in the last elections.
And if someone tells me that lackluster
and anti-charismatic Mr. Steele is going
to do to the GOP's base what Sarah Palin
did (incite it with enthusiasm and the
will of winning) then I will tell that
person: "I have a bridge in Brooklyn
that you might be willing to buy from
me".
Conclusion
The GOP's soft-gloves self-restrained "leaders" (I don's use noun
"morons" here out of being polite)
deserve the blame for losing the
presidential election to the most
left-leaning, and - arguably - least
qualified, candidate in recent history,
period. We cannot afford risking another
loss that would give President Obama
more time to implement his socialist
agenda. It's time for them to relinquish
their "leadership" to those, like Sarah
Palin, who are capable of leading and
winning.
Let's give these "leaders" a boot they deserve for the disasters that they have brought on our heads. Let's rid the GOP's leadership of naturally born losers, RINOs, traitors, neo-cons, and other half-hearted conservatives. Enough is enough, already.
Addendum (February 4, 2009). It turns that the "behind the scenes" manipulations might have been what made Mr. Steele to emerge as the winner. Per NRO (see [3]), Mike Duncan, the front runner with solid initial lead over Steele, exited the race at the last moment after three ballots were cast. (I guess, they "leadership" just kept voting until the desirable candidate won; that must have been much easier then Democratic-style recounts.) One can only imagine the hand twisting that led to that unexpected tossup. [top]