An American Travesty
by Douglas Mercer
THE LIBERAL maggots at the Carnegie Institute once put their high-powered prestige and their bottomless pool of money directly behind an assault on White America.
The treatment of the Negro is America’s greatest and most conspicuous scandal…. The negro problem is a problem in the heart of Americans.
Or so said that great cuck, Swede Gunnar Myrdal, in his 1944 tome An American Dilemma, a book that dropped like a bomb on this country. It was a quiet bomb, of course, as the average man was unlikely to pore through its 1500 pages of mediocre and mendacious prose, but it was a bomb nonetheless. The higher-ups who rule us took it very seriously, and it is not too far to say that the propaganda and intellectual twaddle in its pages became the reigning ideology of our country within two decades.
What on Earth happened?
When this latter-day and poor man’s De Tocqueville came to these shores he was charged with addressing the Negro problem, and came up with whopping lies like this one: “American nationalism is permeated by the American creed and thus becomes international in its essence.” Ah, there you have it, a nationalism that is really a Jewish movement to include all the world in its munificent blessings. The logic here is fishy, to say the least; but it’s not an exaggeration to say that the by now much-ballyhooed so-called “American Creed,” the counter-factual belief in the equality of everything that bears a human face, was probably a Myrdal coinage, and he certainly was the one who thrust it into public discourse. He really should have minded his own business.
Believe it or not, the fakers (aren’t they all) in our heavily-Jewish academy are now in quite a row over whether “democracy” and “racism” are compatible. Simply put, they see the evidence empirically that they are — but they just can’t get their tender minds around such an outrage. Now of course the two can go together, but it’s perilous; the two in tandem can be maintained only if the people guard their racial prerogatives constantly and zealously. Back at the end of the nineteenth century Theodore Roosevelt went so far to say that it was only the democracy of that century that kept America and Australia White for so long. But when plutocrats and Jews (to be redundant) began to rule the roost in those countries, time was already ticking on the White majority.
In a sane country, the book that we would remember today would be the one by that other foreigner who looked at American race relations. He looked at them in the 1930s. Heinrich Krieger was a German exchange student at the University of Arkansas Law School.
Heinrich Krieger was a German lawyer instrumental in providing knowledge of American race law to Nazi policy-makers. As an exchange student at the University Of Arkansas Law School in 1933–34, he engaged in an in-depth examination of American Indian Law and racial law regarding blacks in the American South. Some of his research later served as the basis for the Nuremberg Laws, the centerpiece anti-Jewish legislation of the early Nazi regime.
Krieger studied and essentially mined our law for the good of the Reich. Interestingly, he came to the exact same conclusions about the “American dilemma” as Myrdal did. The “dilemma” was the tension between the official dogma of “all men are equal” (found in the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment) and the clear belief of the folk that this was and was to remain a White country. But whereas Myrdal was appalled that Americans did not live up to their “ideals,” Krieger fretted that one day they would. In the book that he wrote about his research in America, Race Law in the American South, he was heartily cheered by Americans’ realism and sound common sense in these matters; the way they, in the name of the health of their people, ignored the imposed constitutional amendments that declared for Negro “equality.” His main criticism of Americans was that they did not apply their race laws to the Jews as well as to the Blacks. But he hoped that one day they might.
* * *
Gunnar Myrdal was a Swede who journeyed to the American South at the behest of the Carnegie Institute to put a “high powered lens” on race relations in America. He later penned the foreword for Black activist Richard Wright’s book The Color Curtain. Interestingly, he was an economist by background and later won the Nobel Prize in that field jointly with Friedrich Hayek, unsurprisingly betraying a neo-liberal bent.
Like all other major American institutions, the Carnegie Institute went rather quickly to leftist seed. They funded Myrdal’s monstrosity of a book and in the foreword one of its representatives wrote (in 1944):
When the Trustees of the Carnegie Corporation asked for the preparation of this report in 1937, no one (except possibly Adolf Hitler) could have foreseen that it would be made public at a day when the place of the Negro in our American life would be the subject of greatly heightened interest in the United States, because of the social questions which the war has brought in its train both in our military and in our industrial life. It is a day, furthermore, when the eyes of men of all races the world over are turned upon us to see how the people of the most powerful of the United Nations are dealing at home with a major problem of race relations.
This says it all. First, they write as if it was Hitler who started the war, and not the Jews. And then they add that — because Hitler was a “racist,” and “racism” is bad — after defeating Hitler, America “had to” become anti-racist. So the war was a Jewish twofer, ridding them of the German Reich, the only entity capable of putting paid to them, and also ridding them of the White American majority, their last major adversary.
And indeed this insidious text, filled with little more than a thinly-veiled hatred of the White race, became the Ur-Text of the American Jew-subservient power structure.
If Uncle Tom’s Cabin started the Civil War, then this book started the War against Whites. And brought us to our current Age of Floyd.
* * *
At the beginning of the book Myrdal gives a good summation of the rationale behind the color line:
(1) The concern for “race purity” is basic in the whole issue; the primary and essential command is to prevent amalgamation; the whites are determined to utilize every means to this end.
(2) Rejection of “social equality” is to be understood as a precaution to hinder miscegenation and particularly intermarriage.
(3) The danger of miscegenation is so tremendous that the segregation and discrimination inherent in the refusal of “social equality” must be extended to nearly all spheres of life. There must be segregation and discrimination in recreation, in religious service, in education, before the law, in politics, in housing, in stores and in breadwinning.
There is of course no reason to put the words racial purity inside quotation marks, as if such an obvious part of reality did not in fact exist.
He says that for White people the issues that were most important to them in order of rank were: No miscegenation, no interracial dancing or bathing; no vote for Negroes, no “equal job opportunities” for Negroes.
A squared away people to be sure.
He quotes a so-called Negro leader as saying:
“As for amalgamation, very few expect it; still fewer want it; no one advocates it; and only a constantly diminishing minority practice it, and that surreptitiously. It is generally accepted on both sides of the color line that it is best for the two races to remain ethnologically distinct.”
That was a lie, of course; Negro males have always wanted and want nothing more than unrestricted access to White women. They want to leech off our genetic inheritance, they want to have contact with the unparalleled beauty of White females. Just look at all those ads.
In principle the negro problem was settled long ago. The American Creed is emphatic in denouncing differences made on account of race, creed, or color.
He’s just like the Jews who show up five minutes ago and get up on their soapboxes and promptly tell us what it means to be an American. The sickness descends from Lincoln’s patently false assertion that our nation was “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Of course it was never that; that was an ex post facto concoction; it was never such a nation of shreds and patches; it was always from the beginning dedicated to the White race. Lincoln lied.
In spite of all race prejudice few Americans seem to doubt that it is the ultimate fate of this nation to incorporate without distinction not only all the northern European stocks but also the people from Southern and Eastern Europe, the Near East and Mexico.
Having been in this country five minutes, how does he know this? Did he take a poll? No, he’s just pulling it out of his backside and presenting it to the public, acrid smell and all. Are we really supposed to take seriously the idea that in 1944 the vast majority of Americans were totally down with integrating Asians and Mestizos into this great nation? Hell, within a decade the American people spoke loud and clear with Operation Wetback running the little monsters back to their godforsaken country. No, what this is is just cunning lies and propaganda. It assumes facts that had never been in evidence and presents them as “moral” — and as the norm. That so many Americans were cowed by this so-called idealistic talk — and eventually bowed to it and made it so — is a stain on our nation and race.
The pestiferous snow job continues when he claims that though there have been many conservative American statesman, only the “liberals” have gone down as national heroes. First off, prior to, say, 1910 not one American national hero was a liberal in the sense that he means. He can’t really have been as stupid as that, though maybe I’m wrong there. But, more likely, he knows what he is doing. He also makes the lying claim that when these national heroes spoke of equality they were speaking of the equality of all humans, when of course they were only speaking of White people. This is not really all that complicated, but it is a repeated deception on Myrdal’s part. And as for the true conservatives, the Andrew Jacksons and the John Calhouns, they never even spoke of equality and surely they were national icons in 1944.
The others, the negroes, the new immigrants, the Jews, and other disadvantaged and unpopular groups could not possibly have invented a system of political ideals which better corresponded to their interests.
Here he has a point, a point that exposes the soft underbelly of the American system. And that fatal weakness is that if you talk long enough about “rights,” “human dignity,” and “equality” — about constitutions and things “endowed by the Creator” — then pretty soon the entire world thinks you’re talking about them; and, not long after that, a lot of naïve White people start to believe them. At that point a closed system that belongs to you becomes an open one that belongs to whoever is the nastiest, meanest, and the cleverest liar — and then all Hell breaks loose.
According to Myrdal, that worthless cripple Franklin Roosevelt said “let us not forget that we are all descendants of revolutionaries and immigrants.” Word is he was a descendant of Dutch Jews, so it stands to reason he said it.
America, from the Revolution onward, had an equalitarian creed as a going national ethos…. The official political creed of America denounces, in general but vigorous terms, all form of suppression and discrimination and affirms equality.
Myrdal means equality between the races, and this is simply and patently false. This is the ultimate fast one that White people over time allowed to be played on themselves — to sell their literal birthright for the Jewish mess of pottage; to toss away all that they knew to be true and replace it with a lie both foolish and malicious. Myrdal writes that the Americans are a moral people, and this ideal “works on their conscience.” He claims that “Americans are a Christian people who believe in the Christian teaching of a common brotherhood.” Referring to America’s “high national and Christian precepts,” he also quotes the dubious Black historian W.E.B. Dubois as saying that America subscribes to the “caste-leveling precepts of Christianity.” The appeal to America as the “shining city on a hill” has always been catnip for American suckers.
The second point is the existence in society of huge institutional structures like the church, the school, the university, the foundation, the trade union, the association generally, and, of course, the state. It is true, as we shall find, that these institutional structures in their operation show an accommodation to local and temporary interests and prejudices — they could not be expected to do otherwise as they are made up of individuals with all their local and temporary characteristics. As institutions they are, however, devoted to certain broad ideals.
The school, in every community, is likely to be a degree more broad-minded than local opinion. So is the sermon in church. The national labor assembly is prone to decide slightly above the prejudice of the median member. Legislation will, on the whole, be more equitable than the legislators are themselves as private individuals. When the man in the street acts through his orderly collective bodies, he acts more as an American, as a Christian, and as a humanitarian than if he were acting independently.
And there you have it. So much for democracy, or so much for democracy not carefully calibrated and processed through those “orderly collective bodies.”
He even admits that:
Every widening of the writer’s experience of white Americans has only driven home to him more strongly that the opinion that the Negro is unassimilable, or, rather, that his amalgamation into the American nation is undesirable, is held more commonly, absolutely, and intensely than would be assumed from a general knowledge of American thoughtways.
So he admits that the people themselves retain their fierce racial identity, but points out that this folk wisdom and integrity is always filtered through institutional layers which water it down and ultimately negate it. That’s how a revolution happens in race relations; a revolution from above. And once enough of the elite go in that direction, the masses will eventually follow; so the cart goes before the horse and the square always gets circled.
* * *
Myrdal (like anyone else) is unable to refute the biological and evolutionary differences between the races, so he tries to deflect reality by pushing the insane idea that human races don’t exist.
When the time came for the epochal 1950 UNESCO “Statement on Race” (they were against it), Myrdal had become such an exalted personage in the race-hustling racket that he was asked to be a signatory. I’d ask why they wanted an economist with no background in the human sciences to sign this joke, but to ask such a question is to answer it.
As a matter of fact in their basic human traits the negroes are inherently not much different from other people.
Quite obviously Myrdal was not the possessor of a keen eye, a first-rate or even active intelligence, or an acute understanding.
The liars’ most ludicrous (but too often successful) argument is that because there are no 100 per cent. pure indigenous races that means race is a bogus concept. Which is like saying that because of dawn and twilight, day and night don’t exist. But walk out at noon and at midnight and then try to tell me that with a straight face.
As to the inborn capacities and inclinations, men were, on the whole, supposed to be similar, and apparent differences were of cultural origin, and men could be changed through education.
This balderdash is what they keep telling themselves and us, until enough people believe them.
In the 18th century individual differences in mental traits were sometimes recognized. But so far as groups of people were concerned — social classes, nations, and what was beginning to be called “races” — equality of natural endowments was the general assumption.
Listen, I’m no licensed historian or anything, but I’ll eat his hat if that’s true. By that time they had seen plenty of Negroes, and read about Negroes, and smelled them, and once you’ve seen and read about and smelled your share of them, to think that their natural endowments were equal to those of White people would require that you have less than half a brain.
When we now look back on this stage of psychological research, we must remember that there was this common belief of Negro inferiority and, in addition, that many of the earlier studies had a direct or indirect connection with practical questions, such as segregation in schools, which tended to enforce the opportunistic bias.
Right, right: the White man was only seeing what he wanted to see, rather than seeing what he saw with the two eyes in his head. He posits confirmation bias; we posit unafraid empiricism.
It means that when we approach those problems on the hypothesis that differences in behavior are to be explained largely in terms of social and cultural factors, we are on scientifically safe ground. If we should, however, approach them on the hypothesis that they are to be explained primarily in terms of heredity, we do not have any scientific basis for our assumption.
Towards the end of the 2020 Presidential campaign, people started to notice that the Jew media were taking a new and quite alarming tack. They had always been mendacious, of course, but they always tried to reserve at least the thinnest possible level of plausibility. But as the election came near, they would simply spout out simple, childlike direct falsehoods such as “Trump says the election can be stolen — it can’t,” or “Republicans say Democrats want to pack the court — they don’t.” Myrdal’s statement above falls under this rubric: a naïve and meandering falsehood meant to soothe away any doubts, and comfort any who might be worried that the truth could get out of the bag. That is, it is an article of faith, an utterance of dogma. It’s similar to how children think that when you say an untruth baldly enough people will simply accept it and not investigate further.
It would be erroneous to assume that there are no differences in the mental make-up of the Negro race and of other races, and that their activities should mix in the same lines. On the contrary, if there is any meaning in correlation of anatomical structure and physiological function, we must expect that differences exist.
Believe it or not, that paragraph came from the leading Jew “cultural anthropologist” himself, Franz Boas. It’s not the one that they trumpet in every publication on the high holidays, that’s for sure. It’s unclear why Myrdal includes it; perhaps to show how fair he is in considering the idea; perhaps because he is attempting to show how ingrained the belief in racial differences is and that even the biggest blank-slate-believing Jew was not immune to it. But soon enough he is soothing and smoothing again, and assuring us that once we start believing that heredity plays no role in human behavior and mental capacity, and start believing that ameliorative education can turn a near-chimpanzee into a brilliant theoretical physicist, we’ll be well on the way to paradise.
An emphatic assertion of equal endowments is article number one in the growing Negro “race pride.”
Here Myrdal alludes to the always-influential “we wuz kangz” school of biological thought.
* * *
It’s dispiriting to read the record and see how much of our racial surrender has had to to with geopolitical considerations. We wanted be “good” and obey our radio commentators and film producers, and fight the “racist” Hitler — so we started to be compelled, so to speak, to “clean up our act” at home to show that we were “moral.” Then, in the Cold War, we wanted to present ourselves to the world as “moral exemplars” — and we had already accepted the Christian morality as mediated by Jews — so we “had to” turn our country over to Negroes and open our borders to any non-White who wanted in. Hell, way back in 1919 at the Versailles Conference, the sneaky Japanese (a people who definitely don’t believe in racial equality) put forth a clause saying that all signatories “will recognize racial equality.” At the time, the White countries balked at that, but the writing was on the wall for our eventual caving. You get enough Brown and Black countries cackling in unison about how they are every bit as good as us, and you’ll get plenty of White moral cowards to live in mortal fear of their clamor.
Americans also recognize that America has to take world leadership. The coming difficult decades will be America’s turn in the endless sequence of main actors on the world stage. America then will have the major responsibility for the manner in which humanity approaches the long era during which the white peoples will have to adjust to shrinkage while the colored are bound to expand in numbers, in level of industrial civilization and in political power. For perhaps several decades, the whites will still hold the lead, and America will be the most powerful white nation.
America goes to this task with the best of intentions. Declarations of inalienable human rights for people all over the world are now emanating from America. Wilson’s fourteen points were a rehearsal; Roosevelt’s four freedoms are more general and more focused on the rights of the individual. The national leaders proclaim that the coming peace will open an age of human liberty and equality everywhere.
America feels itself to be humanity in miniature. When in this crucial time the international leadership passes to America, the great reason for hope is that this country has a national experience of uniting racial and cultural diversities and a national theory, if not a consistent practice, of freedom and equality for all. What America is constantly reaching for is democracy at home and abroad. The main trend in its history is the gradual realization of the American Creed.
This is the American travesty writ small. It suggests a question: How much of our tragedy could have been averted if the phrase had instead been written, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all White men are created equal.”
* * *
An American Dilemma went through 25 printings before going into its second edition in 1965. It was enormously influential at the highest levels, as it was intended to be, and it was cited in the case of Brown v. Board, in which the Supreme Court held that in order to have holy and blessed and legally-required “equality,” little White children had to have unlimited numbers of Blacks loosed into their schoolrooms, playgrounds, and hallways.
All in all, a most pernicious book, funded and pushed by the rich and powerful and intended to kill our nation and our children. Its publication was an act of murder — murder one, with malice aforethought. Now do you understand why bonfires like Hitler’s are sometimes necessary?
* * *
The younger generation of whites are less indoctrinated against the negro than their parents were.
If so, this bespeaks a gross negligence in basic education.
Now in our Age of Floyd, in a culture saturated with anti-White ideology, we see the mature fruits of this lying and evil book. Whites are now second-class citizens in the country created by their ancestors. The posterity of the Founders finds itself in perilous straits. And in significant measure, this is due to the malicious tripe disseminated by Gunnar Myrdal three-quarters of a century ago, which was swallowed whole by a subservient White establishment, happily accepting their recent demotion to well-paid managers on the Jews’ plantations.
It must be taken for granted in the final outcome of things that the color line will be wholly obliterated. While blood may be thicker than water, it does not possess the inherency of everlasting principle. The brotherhood of man is more fundamental than the fellowship of race. A physical and spiritual identity of all peoples occupying common territory is a logical necessity of thought. The clear seeing mind refuses to yield or give its assent to any other ultimate conclusion.
Just as there was that very good book by Krieger that predated Myrdal’s, there was another which postdated it by a few years. It was written by a United States Senator, yet so thoroughly has Myrdal’s vision of race relations been shoved down our throats, and so thoroughly have dissident voices been suppressed, that the very title of the book shocks those who have not seen the truth. The subtitle is: Separation or Amalgamation.
The title speaks to us today. It speaks the truth:
Take Your Choice.
* * *