World

The ignored eugenics of Gunnar Myrdal, creator of the Welfare State

Gunnar Myrdal is a famous Swedish economist who shared the Nobel with Hayek in 1974. Sweden is a country considered by the good guys as heaven on earth: lots of taxes, but lots of quality public services, in addition to a very high HDI. The Royal Swedish Academy, in 1974, did its best to please Greeks and Trojans, as Hayek and Myrdal proposed opposing theses. Hayek believed that intelligence diffused throughout society was capable of engendering, in a decentralized manner, an order superior to that of any planner. This made Hayek an anti-communist, but also an anti-Nazi, an anti-fascist, an anti-positivist and an anti-progressive, since all these political currents believed in the planning of the economy by a central authority. Gunnar Myrdal was just the opposite. He was the defender of the strong and planned state, capable of providing all citizens with well-being. He was, in a word, the ideologue of present-day Sweden.

But if the State is going to plan the benefits distributed to the citizens, nothing more natural than to want to regulate the number of inhabitants. Thus, Myrdal and his wife were notorious activists in the eugenics movement. And Sweden has gone to great lengths to compulsorily sterilize its citizens deemed worthless, with a focus on women of childbearing age. Bad glasses, and a nurse might conclude that she was a mentally retarded person unable to read, therefore, a girl to be sterilized.

We just thinks Sweden is beautiful because she is a muggle. We are not alone in this, however. Gunnar Myrdal was paid by the Carnegie Corporation of New York to report on “the Negro problem”

there in the United States. One conclusion, not surprising, is that the black population needed to be reduced. The surprise is to know that his work An American Dillema: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (Harper, 1944), the resulting report, is considered an indispensable document for the advancement of blacks in the United States. It was even used in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, when the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in educational institutions was unconstitutional.

Racialization of regionalism[para Myrdal]

Let’s take a look at the book; in particular, in the “Population” chapter. When considering birth rates, it is noteworthy that Gunnar Myrdal uses the black versus white cut even though he is aware of the importance of regional discrepancies. As we saw with Sowell, there is an important regional divide in the United States between the agrarian South and the urban North. Given that blacks in Myrdal’s time were concentrated in the agrarian area, it was not surprising that they had a higher birth rate than whites, nor that infant mortality was higher than that of whites. This is a reflection of the rural versus urban divide, as the rural world tends (or tended, before technological agriculture) to have higher birth and infant mortality rates than in urban centers. If blacks are concentrated in the agrarian area, this can be explained. To have racial relevance, only if there were a statistic that considered whites and blacks from rural areas. And in fact the whites of the South were called white trash in the jargon of social planners (an expression still used by Sílvio Almeida to refer to to Donald Trump voters). Even Carrie Buck, forcibly sterilized by the United States at the beginning of the century, was a poor white woman from the South.

Could this practice of using the racial rather than the regional court to deal with blacks at the federal level? It is possible that yes, since the United States, before the 20th century, had a strong regional division, which culminated in a bloody civil war. On the other hand, Myrdal may not have been individually responsible for this, as progressivism does and is older than Myrdal.

So even always being little more than 10% of the population of the United States and concentrating, at the time of the study, in the countryside, blacks were placed side by side with whites as a whole by Myrdal, and, of course, they always got the worst of it. A cause for concern, therefore, were such birth and infant mortality rates, accompanied by poverty. What is the best solution for this? Reduce birth rates and therefore mortality. In fact, reducing the general population of blacks so that there are better blacks. Blacks migrated from the South to the urban North. As he himself pointed out, the richer and more urban the whites and blacks, the lower the birth rate. The birth rate was decreasing between whites and blacks because both were urbanizing and adhering to the novelty of birth control – but it decreased less among blacks, because whites were already very urban (the North was inhabited and had few blacks – few and well successful, as Sowell says, mostly from the Caribbean). If that were the case, it was to be expected that black people, being normal people, would also get rich, despite discrimination.

Fertility, money and causality

Says Myrdal: “As we do not foresee any rise in the economic status of the Negro masses in the immediate future, nor even a great increase in their tiny elites and middle classes, it does not seem that the factor of an increase in the standard of living will per se be of great importance for fertility” (p. 178 -165). It is clear from this that population reduction is an end in itself. Thus, it would be necessary to enrich blacks modestly and artificially to have an impact on quantity. He continues: “The future development of Welfare policy may become much more important , but its effect would be different from an increase in income. If the social security system is extended and pensions are given to children, and other welfare policies – relating to housing, food and health – are developed and geared more towards the well-being of children, this could stop the decline in fertility, decrease mortality and increase net reproduction. These effects will be greater on the poor than on the well-off, and therefore would be better for blacks than whites – as blacks are more concentrated in the lower income strata. If there is an increased dissemination of information about birth control , there will be a drop in fertility, mortality and net reproduction” (p. 49). Moral of the story: you have to give black people welfare policies and, at the same time, birth control, otherwise they will reproduce. Furthermore, the alternative for the growth of the black population would be the immigration of foreign blacks, usually from the Caribbean (which he still calls the West Indies). But since blacks have few opportunities, such immigration seems unlikely, so that giving welfare and birth control to the poor in general, black fertility in particular should fall.

National reconciliation via population reduction

In section 4 of the chapter, entitled “Purposes and means of population policy”, Myrdal is more explicit. It is regretted that the heterogeneity of the US makes social engineering difficult (the term was not pejorative at the time) and, specifically, the application of birth control. “Fundamentalist” Protestants in the South and Catholic enclaves in the North are against the “discussion” of the subject – and from there it is seen that, at least since , “discussion” is a euphemism for imposition.

The dilemma pointed out by Mydral in the title of the book is between America’s ideals of freedom, equality, and Christian charity; and racism. Here is a solution that may please everyone: “If we forget the means for the moment, and consider only the quantitative target for black population policy, there is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of white Americans [– que já eram a maioria esmagadora do país –] want to that there are as few blacks as possible in the US. If blacks could be eliminated from the US or greatly reduced in numbers, this would meet with the approval of whites – provided it could be achieved by means that are also approved. Correspondingly, an increase in the proportion of blacks in the American population is commonly viewed as undesirable” (p. 167). If you put everyone in a death camp, the American will think it’s ugly. So it has to cut it down in a cute way (actually, the historical options presented by Myrdal – and rejected by Southerners – were deportation to Africa and the creation of a 1944 th state). In Myrdal’s words, “all [sic] American whites agree that if the Negro is to be eliminated, he must be eliminated slowly, without harming any living black individual. Therefore, the dominant assessment in the US is that blacks should be eliminated from the American scene, but slowly ” (p. [– que já eram a maioria esmagadora do país –] ).

Next, he considers that blacks never they can agree on the ultimate goal, but, however, nevertheless, nevertheless, they must agree on the reduction of their own population. He regrets that almost every black man he has encountered there considers the number of children to be proof of the people’s virility. He then cites the notorious black eugenicist Du Bois to promote national conciliation. Referring to blacks of common opinion, Du Bois says: “They need to learn that, among races and human groups, like vegetables, quality counts, not mere quantity” (p.

)). Du Bois’s theory is that blacks should engender an elite out of the % of blacks talented. Just as white Americans sterilized Carrie Buck to improve the race and Swedes a few thousand Swedes, blacks could also be eugenic and even “anti-racist”, if they consider the existence of mere 10% of blacks who pay. Sterilizing 90% of blacks to make blacks good is a form of “anti-racism” in the US.

Well, as for the comparison between men and vegetables, we can see that the Christian right spends a hell of a lot of time talking about communists today, when this other source of devaluation of the life is in our face, hidden in plain sight, as the English-speakers say. It’s a shame that progressivism doesn’t have a flag, like communism has a hammer and sickle. This ideology is snatching other people’s flags and fooling the muggle.

Let’s not fail to notice that the large white demography was used in combination with democracy (or rather a democratism) to plan the elimination of a portion of the population.

Antinatalist propaganda

If blacks don’t want to leave or be murdered, and if this also goes against the creed of the white majority, birth control remains – which is resisted by fanatics in the South and Catholics in the South. North. But the pseudoscientific “fact” is that “there are in the South a large number of blacks – as well as whites – who are so dispossessed that, from a general social point of view [isto é, o dele], it would be highly desirable [para Myrdal] that they would not procreate. The same is true, albeit to a much lesser degree, in the North” (p. 175).

But sterilizing against their will the Americans think is ugly, so it won’t be possible to do it like in Sweden. Another option is abortion, but “the average American has a similar attitude” to this measure, because “in their opinion, life should not be extinguished. Abortion, moreover, is not entirely free from health risks” (p. 169). Without compulsory sterilization and induced abortion, contraception remains. In addition to organized religions, this method faces “the inertia and puritanical morality of the masses” (p. 178).

Thus, it remains to invest in advertising and in the installation of birth control clinics in black areas, as the Planned Parenthood of eugenicist Margaret Sanger was already successfully doing. This implied ceasing to make contraception a subject to be dealt with only by doctors. He says: “The main reason to defend this shift in emphasis is that mass education and propaganda reach more people in less time and at less cost than clinics run by doctors and nurses” (p.

).

The sources of deception

Throughout this chapter, it is repeated that the birth of poor children is a bad thing in itself. Everything happens as if wealth were a big ready-made cake, and the greater number of children implies the smaller size of the slices. It’s Malthusianism.

Another presupposition is that, with each child having a fat slice of the cake, everything was resolved. Children are like Du Bois’ vegetables, for which they only need a certain amount of material to develop. For my part, I have never seen anyone talk to a legume or spank it to make it grow well. Pensions for single mothers have increased single mothers, fatherless children have become more criminally prone, and black Americans continue to fill jails. The disgrace of black families, if we trust Sowell, is the result of social engineering that bears the beautiful name of Welfare.

Chesterton, in Eugenics and Other Disgraces, says that eugenics is a new morality according to which we are responsible only for unborn babies. He wrote this in 178, and time would prove to be correct. Several babies were not born; the born became careless.

Materialism is the main problem. But another, sad to see, is that Myrdal managed to resolve the moral conflict in the US by flattering racism and the desire to get rid of black people.

A history of black people in Brazil is a thousand times better than that.

Back to top button