Everyone wants to be superior
Contemporary America says it believes in the equality of all groups and cultures, but in reality none of those groups or cultures believes in equality. Each group wants to be superior and dominant. Blacks don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Homosexuals don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Hispanics don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Muslims don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Feminist women don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. The only group today that doesn’t want to be superior and dominant, the only group that sincerely believes in the equality of all groups, is the historic Anglo-European majority population and culture of the United States.
The non-liberal truth is that in any given society, one group or culture must be dominant and set the tone and standards for the rest. There is thus no substitute for making the decision as to which group or culture will be dominant, or, by continuing to bleat about the wonders of equality, passively letting that decision be made for us by others. Liberalism has no answer to this problem, because its only answer to all problems is to call for more equality. I therefore propose that the traditional, Anglo-European majority culture of this country, shorn of its suicidal liberal belief in the equality of all groups and cultures, be the dominant culture.
Ray G. writes from Dearborn, Michigan
Love your “Everyone wants to be superior” post. So true. I have always felt this to be so. For better or worse, a society that doesn’t have a dominant culture will be chaos. Just ethnic tribes competing for their space to feed at the federal trough. If we let the percentage of white Americans fall much more (due to the importation of non-white immigrants), it will be too late to maintain an Anglo-based, Judeo-Christian, English speaking, traditional American culture.Kathlene M. writes:
With all these groups fighting to be dominant, the Democrat party’s schisms will become more obvious and contribute to the party’s disintegration. Meanwhile our government will become more tyranical in its efforts to force everyone to be equal; it will punish groups and religions that don’t conform to its two principles of “equal freedom for all” and “zero tolerance for all discrimination.” Liberalism at some point will implode from its own irrationality. (We can only pray that it’s sooner rather than later.) Then we can hope that the traditional Anglo-European majority culture can become dominant again.Jim C. writes:
“Everybody wants to be superior.”LA replies:
The individuality you value could not exist without a cultural matrix that gave birth to it and supported it. It is the libertarian fantasy that individuality can come into being in a void, based on nothing but itself. Could there have been be a Howard Roark without America? The libertarians ignore the collective/social dimension of reality which is the opposite pole of the individual dimension. In the context of Western culture, the two poles are in tension with each other, and could not exist without each other.Jim C. writes:
You speak of “the non-liberal truth is that in any given society, one group or culture must be dominant and set the tone and standards for the rest.”LA replies:
Have you forgotten all the people who have lost their jobs for offending a non-Asian minority? The inability of employers and managers to fire incompetent or badly behaved blacks? The unspoken rule of silence that governs the speech of whites in government and business? The axe that falls on those who forget the rule?Philip M. writes:
I am having trouble matching up Jim’s C.’s first point with the second. In the first he seems to be saying that he he does not regard people as being part of groups, and as such sees no struggle for a dominant set of values or standards, or at least no need for one. But then in his second comment he mentions two groups—blacks and Hispanics, and says they have no power, and therefore their ways cannot dominate because they lack that power. These two statement seem to me to be mutually exclusive. The fact that Jim was instantly able to define groups, and instantly able to make assessments about their relative power in society (if nothing naturally existed beyond the individual there would be no such power to be had), which in turn presupposed Jim had pondered the possibility that these groups may seek power, and even the ways they may make their power felt if they had it (by intimidating you in the workplace) does not seem to me consistent with someone who truly sees the world as an individual, or who seriously expects others to do likewise.October 19
Gilbert B. writes:
You wrote: “Could there have been be a Howard Roark without America? The libertarians ignore the collective/social dimension of reality which is the opposite pole of the individual dimension.”LA replies:
Ayn Rand’s definition of nationhood is ideological not real. She’s defining a nation as a collection of rightsbearing individuals. A nation, a political society, is more than this. For one thing, it forms its members. How could it form its members if it’s no more than a collection of its members? So you’re just repeating back to me the reductive definition of nationhood that I’ve already shown is false and inadequate.Ron K. writes:
You write, “Feminist women don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant.”Cornelius Troost writes:
LA makes a profound point about human nations, races, linguistic groups, and even American college fraternities. Once, long ago, I watched in horror as my frat brothers( Theta Chi) at the U. of Maine grabbed baseball bats, rocks, and even knives as they went outside to line up for actual physical battle with Beta Theta Pi. I alone refused to go and was called a coward by several zealots.I actually felt confident about my “cowardly” move because I never took frat membership seriously. Certainly to go to war for a group of drinking buddies was an easy project to reject.My point is that even these fraternities fought each other over grade point averages, etc. Competition is very fundamental to nature and human culture.October 20
I am in agreement with C. Troost’s rather discouraging comments, and at the same time I got to thinking about a closely related topic.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 17, 2009 12:56 PM | Send