Alien Anti-Cultures, Such As That Of Myrdal's American Creed, Have Pressing Incentives To Replace Loyalty To Fellow Citizens With Anti-Discrimination

It suits the convenience of foreign hostiles to have American national loyalties redefined into anti-discrimination and the Creed of the Equality of All Mankind. When you reorganize society around anti-discrimination, the minimum loyalties of citizens to each other, and over against foreigners arriving in hostile manner, get eliminated. If anti-discrimination is used in the above way, though, contradictions-in-terms have to follow. One can't discriminate against someone who discriminates, that would mean both failing to be anti-discrimination, and supportive of it at the same time and in the same respect. When, as with Myrdal's fake national essence of believing that all are equal and should be judged without regard to race, creed, religion, color or national origin, there is an insuperable contradiction following with the exclusion of those of, for example, the Islamic creed, where Islam demands discrimination on the basis of creed. Such a belief in an idea, contradictory or otherwise, is not equal to national loyalty; it is not the same as loyalty to fellow citizens who are loyal to us in the minimum necessary degree. Thus, another contradiction-in-terms emerges from the notional nation of anti-discrimination: national loyalty is set equal to its opposite and negation. Another insuperable contradiction-in-terms arises from believing that those who do not believe in the anti-discrimination creed were outside the nation, if it defines them thus outside, it discriminates on the basis of creed; if it doesn't, the supposed national creed does not define the nation. It may be that few would expect that which calls itself The American Creed to be free of the most extreme and self-refuting contradictions. If one is speaking of Myrdal, though, or any others who described their opponents as proceeding only from irrationality, then the appearance of contradictions-in-terms arising from a central doctrine, must not be swept under the rug. Anti-discrimination as a basis for a nation is wrong and traitorous: it denies the loyalty we need to maintain towards fellow nationals, regarding at least, that circumstance in which foreigners enter in a way which increases the aggression here. It subverts that irreducible minimum loyalty necessary for the nation to be a lasting one, since it rejects discrimination as between citizen and foreigner, substituting generic humanity for that specific loyalty. Loyalty to generic humanity can be an addition to, but not a substitute for, loyalty to fellow nationals in the case of foreign aggression within the borders at least. One loyalty posesses attributes of sovereignty, the other occupies spiritual ground. See also this link:Liberty or equality?
Also:

"Traditionally, the principle that every American has a right to be treated “without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin” was long regarded as the most fundamental of our core values, so fundamental that Gunnar Myrdal (and many others) labeled it “The American Creed” in his highly influential AN AMERICAN DILEMMA (1944). Not only was this creed written into the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, it was even the basis for the two presidential Executive Orders that first implemented “affirmative action” in the federal government — 10925 from President Kennedy on March 6, 1961, and 11246 from President Johnson on September 28, 1965. They both repeated identical language in many provisions, typified by the beginning of Kennedy’s order:

WHEREAS discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin is contrary to the Constitutional principles and policies of the United States...."
Quoted from John Rosenberg's www.discriminations.us/ : The Press Dog That Didn’t Bark... »