Group Threat, Racial Threat
by Karl Gunther
WHEN SOMEONE says that something is “academic” they mean it is moot — it is irrelevant, it no longer matters.
That’s because these heads-in-the-clouds ivory-tower types come up with theories that are either wildly divergent from reality, or that show an amazing grasp of the obvious.
One of the former types was a theory that came out in the 1950s. This was the time of Brown v. Board and professors who prided themselves on “confronting” the made-up specter of “racism,” and they came up with the idea of contact theory.
Contact theory states that the reason for racial conflict is that the races are still largely segregated and don’t know each other well enough; it predicted that, as desegregation proceeded, the races would begin to have more and more contact with one another, and racial differences and conflicts would disappear.
This theory was clearly pie-in-the-sky (or cynical) propaganda for race-mixing; it is also obviously the exact opposite of the truth.
It’s said that anyone who understands quantum mechanics doesn’t understand quantum mechanics; similarly, any White person who has a warm regard for Blacks doesn’t know many Blacks, certainly not a large enough number to know them in the aggregate. From a distance, Blacks can be “tolerated” when that “tolerance” costs one nothing or even boosts one’s social status. This is nothing more than repeating approved phrases and posing for “photo ops” with a few especially tame Negroids. Up close to the real “Black community” it’s another matter altogether. Up close it’s fear, up close it is loathing.
Joe Sobran’s old joke still applies — the one about the value of a college education being that it gives you the properly enlightened attitude toward Blacks, and also the wherewithal to live as far away from them as is humanly possible.
It’s called White Flight for a reason.
So as far as contact theory goes, the theory that when they have enough contact with one another the races will finally live in perfect harmony — well, let’s just say that contact theory is one theory that didn’t survive its first contact with reality. How could it?
A second theory they came up with is nearly the opposite; instead of being false, it is so obvious as not to need to be stated — but that didn’t stop them from stating it anyway, at hundreds of taxpayer and tuition dollars per word, probably.
Group threat theory is a sociological theory which proposes that the larger the size of an outgroup, the more the corresponding ingroup perceives it to threaten its own interests, resulting in the ingroup members having more negative attitudes toward the outgroup.
No kidding? Who could have seen that coming? One might as well call it the “there goes the neighborhood theory.”
Everybody knows this. And it’s not that the rapidly increasing outgroup is perceived to threaten the ingroup, it in fact does threaten threaten the ingroup.
When Whites are primed by articles about ever-increasing “diversity” and about their own bleak and rapidly diminishing demographic future, they suddenly become more “biased” against minorities; polls have shown this consistently. But when the professors say “biased,” they show their deceitful hand. “Bias,” like “prejudice,” implies someone doesn’t have all the facts, and so irrationally discriminates; but in their own experiment they stipulate that the subjects are given more information, not less. Far from being biased, the subjects have been radically disabused of their former misconceptions. Their response to being educated is to begin thinking — and looking after the interests of their kind. In short, it’s the best part of waking up.
And the fact that education can rouse White people to ethnic self defense is why our enemies in and out of the academy struggle so hard to keep White people “in the dark” about a future that is dark indeed
Robert Putnam’s very name screams “colonial stock.” But this sell-out married a Jew and converted to Jew-dom, something which undoubtedly helped to rocket him to prominence. Putnam’s study of “diversity” in his book Bowling Alone has nevertheless helped racial patriots awaken their kinsmen to one of the horrific prices we pay for converting our country into a multiracial feeding and breeding zone. This is because he proved (to his dismay and discomfiture) that if a society’s strength is defined as social cohesion, then not only is diversity not a strength — it’s a fatal weakness, a poisoning of the national bloodstream. Indeed, he proved more; he showed that there is a precise mathematical relationship between diversity and social cohesion, that they have a perfectly reciprocal relationship, that is, the more you have of the one, the less you have of the other. And vice versa. As one goes up, the other goes down, like an hydraulic lift. He showed us that this is an immutable social law that knows no exceptions.
The anti-White creeps in the faculty lounge couldn’t have been too happy with this result, nor was the “great man” himself. Which is why Putnam dragged his feet in announcing his results to the world. And even when he did, he tried some typically Jewish fancy footwork to hide or at least mitigate the effects of his findings. He tried to say that the downside of diversity comes at the beginning, but that “over time” it would “work to the benefit of all.” But Mr. Putnam, sir, when my White daughter was knifed by a non-White invader, was that before or after the “benefits” started? And when our cities burned, over and over again? Those are downsides enough to make one wonder how great the price will be of these putative “long term benefits.”
These “benefits” are fantasies, anyway. It’s not only genocide all the way down, but as far as the eye can see. But just remember what Putnam actually found, and forget about how he tries to cushion it: Diversity is a weakness. Sounds like a winning slogan to me.
This idea of diversity being a weakness is fully buttressed by reality. As is group threat theory, also called racial threat theory. In this latter guise, it postulates that when an outgroup has an ever-growing population or influence within the society, the majority will force “social controls” on that outgroup. Well, that’s what Hitler did, and good on him. That’s what sober and rational people do. But it’s not what we do here in America any more, in fact we do the opposite. As the outgroup grows, we let them place social controls on us. Think statues toppling; think “affirmative action”; think instant career death if one speaks of our Kosher masters in a less-than-worshipful tone. Our subservient and suicidal gestures are undeniable.
Racial threat theory has another thing going for it, too. Its name. “Group threat” is too anodyne, too nondescript.
Remember those White people who were educated about at least a small part of the genocide being planned for them? Remember how that made them want to defend their race? Well, how about educating them on the facts, and on the basics of racial threat theory?
And remind them about how that theory is being misrepresented when it’s presented to us — how we’re told that we are “controlling” the minorities, when their own two good eyes tell them the opposite. And then just tell them again that the name of the theory is racial threat theory. Racial threat. Quite an eye-opener, that one. Racial threat; it’s not a theory, it’s a fact, and they know it in their bones. It will cause them to see themselves as part of a people, a people under attack, a people with interests all our own. A people at war with other peoples.
It’s the best part of waking up.
* * *