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.

- end of initial entry -

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.

I know you’ve referenced Jim Kalb many times. He wrote the excellent essay, “The Tyranny of Liberalism” and also has a book out on the same subject. From a quick look at the book’s summary (I haven’t yet read the book), he mentions that to oppose liberalism we need to adopt a traditional outlook and strengthen the traditional structures (e.g., churches, communities and families) that liberalism is seeking to destroy. A strong traditional structure can help counter the tyranny and destruction of liberalism; it will help sustain us through increasingly difficult times.

Jim C. writes:

“Everybody wants to be superior.”

Not me. Whatever happened to individuals?

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.”

I agree, but let’s get serious here. Has anyone on this blog ever been intimidated by a black or Hispanic in the work environment? That’s where the real power is—and these two groups have virtually no power there, except with the minor help of affirmative action.

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.

Furthermore, if Jim thinks everyone being equal would do away with a struggle for dominance, then he is surely mistaken. Nature abhors a vacuum. Tolerance is the final “virtue” of a dying people who no longer know what to believe. In such a society it would surely only be a matter of time before some of those individuals fouind a common cause and a reason to dominate.

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.”

However, according to Ayn Rand, a ‘nation’ is a large number of individuals who live in the same geographical locality under the same political system. Capitalism protects individual rights and, rights derive from our nature as rational human beings. Miss Rand describes a right as “a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.” Social context!

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.”

The source is long lost, but I remember a writer years ago wisely advising men that “Women don’t believe in equality, they believe in the upper hand. And if you don’t take it, they will.”

You could call this “vacuum theory.”

However, women (and homosexuals) aside, all the groups you mention simply don’t belong here, and never should have been invited. The problem—our problem—is not their behavior, it’s their location. For their part, they can have all the superiority and dominance they want, back in their own lands.

Your term “Anglo-European majority culture” covers up an earlier struggle between Anglo-Saxons and various European tribes themselves bent on being “superior and dominant.” (James Michael Curley being a prime example.) “Angloeurocentrism” lacks a certain something as a rallying cry. If the Europeans have assimilated (and looking at Boston, Chicago and some other places, you have to wonder), then they should have little problem with a pure Anglocentrism.

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.

In America we are witnessing the slide into pop culture oblivion that does indeed provide the meat grinding mechanism for a morass of slovenly, tatooed, semi-literate sameness that could be ably reinforced by the relativism that liberalism sells. This is a deadly threat that appears to counter LA’s assertion. However, beneath this grinding pop culture morass is a tribal mentality in Hispanics, blacks, and Asians that promises a desperate fight for “top dog.” Blacks display their tribal aggression in many ways, including their obsession with white accomplishment and the need to ” cadillac” their way to greater recognition. Hispanics refuse to learn English and have infiltrated our main institutions in order to pave the way to ultimate victory when we will almost literally look and sound like Mexico, including pathologies that would make Mexico look like Disneyland. The brutality and almost pornographic fever of much of pop culture degrades our civil order and lays the groundwork for a tribe like Hispanics to eventually dominate white culture.Hate speech laws, if they are enacted, will be a major step toward that disaster.

Various kinds of diversity make life interesting but our path to a liberal society of egalitarian madness seems destined to crush the high cultural standards bequeathed to us by our immediate ancestors. Latino culture lends itself readily to very degrading aspects of pop culture [LA replies: which was celebrated at the White House last week] and their vast numbers and political savvy are pointing to ultimate takeover. Whites, stifled by PC pressures and fear of the usually phony “crime” of racism, are witnessing a massive tribal “replacement” with hardly a whimper, slobbering over the joys of porn and unable to read well enough to learn the facts at sites like vdare.com where they could read their own obituary. To find the truth in LA’s indictment one must look beneath the surface morass of pop culture debauchery and see the tribal aggression Hispanics seem to relish.

October 20

Hannon writes:

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.

There seems to be always an assumption in these discussions that in the context of antagonism and conflict whites are “regular folks”—reasonably intelligent, productive, representing average America. Conversely, the more aggressive tendencies of foreign ethnicities tend to be over-emphasized or taken for granted. As a consequence it looks pretty grim for ancestors of European stock virtually everywhere.

What is missing from this picture, however, is the important fact that there is no shortage of whites whose low threshold for violence accompanies a cultural ignorance and despair. We tend not to be so overtly violent as other groups but a substantial potential is there, both literally and as an expression of lower class conditions and distinctions.

It is difficult to measure the potential outcome in a fight when the capabilities of the most reluctant—and numerically most substantial—contender lie dormant.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 17, 2009 12:56 PM | Send