America was initially settled by Anglo-Protestant people. The institutions they created owed a heavy debt to similar institutions they had known in Britain.  American culture, which is broadly defined in terms of thought patterns, traditions, habits, language, religion, and social mores, was forged by our British forebears. European immigrants soon thereafter made the journey across the pond and assimilated to the culture that Brits created in this new land. All these facts are unquestionable and easily corroborated.

Yet, today, there is no group of people whose contributions to American life are disparaged and maligned more than those of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS). I implore you to think fairly about the matter.  When a WASP male is referred to derisively as a "white boy," "cracker," "honkey," "gringo," or "cavacho," scarcely an eyebrow is raised.  But when he refers to another as a "nigger," "kike," "towel head," "beaner," "gook," or "chink," it is as if the unpardonable sin is committed.  Just ask actor Michael Richards, pictured on the left, about the way this double standard operates!

We know of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Black Chamber of Commerce, the Miss Black America Pageant, Black Entertainment Television (BET), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Black History Month, the United Negro College Fund (UNCF), and Black colleges.  But what if WASPS dared form their own specifically designated counterpart to each of these?  Do you think for a moment that the initiative would be well received? We all know the answer to the question:  the initiative would be condemned as incorrigibly racist. Most of us have been treated enough to the moralistic rants of Jesse Jackson and his ilk to realize the obviousness of the answer too.

Did you know that there are so-called "majority-minority" electoral districts, mandated by Congress and the Department of Justice and racially gerrymandered so as to insure the election of "minority" persons?  Have you missed the fact that preferential admission, hiring, and promotion on the basis of race and ethnicity have been practiced for almost half a century in this country, during this "enlightened" age of civil rights?  When an American citizen applies for a job, often he is requested to complete a separate form, on which he discloses his race or ethnicity by checking off whether he is African, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, Eskimo, etc. "White Anglo-Saxon" seldom, if ever, appears on the list; instead, the applicant is requested to check either the conflated "White (non Hispanic)" box or the amorphous  one marked "Other." It has apparently never dawned upon affirmative action officials that the consignment of another human being to an undifferentiated mass of humanity in this particular way comprises a form of belittlement. 

You may be asking yourself, "In light of the baleful legacy of slavery and Jim Crow in this country and of the preferential treatment accorded WASPs for centuries, is it reasonable for them now to speak out in such a manner?"  My response is that, if discrimination was wrong then, it is wrong now.  It is time to end racism in all its guises, forever.  It is debilitating to everyone in our society.  Affirmative action, if practiced in the fields of entertainment and athletics, might benefit WASPs in the short run, but would probably produce in the long run the same inferior products which presently pervade our schools and industries.

Interestingly, at this juncture in the discussion, someone will invariably accuse me of being nothing but an unabashed racist, another David Duke no less. A comment like the following is often thrown in for good measure:  "Oh, I see, you have suddenly become conscious of race and ethnicity now that oppressed peoples are finally being given a chance."  This comment, as well as any one of its many despicable variants, assumes that "being given a chance" is synonymous with preference.  It is not.  Furthermore, in the Orwellian world in which we live, speaking out against racism is frequently equated with racism itself.  

As you listen to spokesmen from organizations, such as the NAACP or La Raza, peddle their transparently racist wares to the nation, you may wonder how American life became this skewed.  What happened?  A book, The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, written by Prof. Eric P. Kaufmann, pictured at right, addresses these and other such questions.  He lectures at Birbeck College, at the University of London.  Political correctness has apparently not infected his pen like it has those of most American academics.  He writes, "The qualitative decline of American dominant ethnicity has been driven by equality and liberal-individualism, each of which confronts it in a different way.  Egalitarianism undermines the idea of dominance, while expressive individualism tends to corrode all forms of ethnicity."  In other words, the anarchic idea of "doing one's own thing" in a multicultural context displaced the Anglo-Protestant tone of American culture.

"How was this implemented?" you ask.  At the risk of oversimplification, a group of intellectuals, primarily from New York and Chicago, led by figures such as John Dewey and Jane Addams, thought pluralism should be emphasized in American life. They began the push for it, in the name of equality and dignity of the individual, by promoting settlement houses and radical changes in public education. Their efforts produced many intellectual converts, whose ideas were heavily represented on the faculties of colleges and universities and in media outlets.  After World War II, when Americans began enrolling in universities and watching television, radical liberalism and egalitarianism were institutionalized.  The result was both latent and expressed hostility toward any sense of Anglo-Protestantism in American culture. This development explains what has happened in immigration law, where the floodgates have been opened to those from Third World countries, who come to this country both legally and illegally.  It also explains why it is permissible to insult WASPs but not others.  We need a President who desires to promote traditional American culture, not one such as Barack Obama who obviously despises it.

It is disturbing to see what the looters have done, and are continuing to do, to the spiritual foundation of our culture. United States district judge for the western district of Wisconsin, Barbara B. Crabb, pictured at left, recently ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional on the specious ground that it constitutes an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. What gall! Has the woman never read the utterances of George Washington, John Adams, or even Thomas Jefferson?  Does she have any inkling of what Jefferson's metaphor of "a wall of separation between church and state" meant in the historical  context in which it was set forth? No, definitely not.  In a nutshell, her decision may be understood for what it is, nothing more than a brazen broadside against Anglo-Protestant culture.

The Tea Party movement, along with any other protests, should without a doubt emphasize issues such as fiscal responsibility, free markets, and constitutionally limited government. Yet the cultural issue undergirds them all and screams for attention. If protesters fail to understand and to respond to America's cultural crisis, then all will be lost.

It is time to speak out against the looters, disguised as "brilliant innovators," who would ruthlessly re-invent our country.  Time is of the essence.

April 17, 2010