No White racial solidarity.
Let’s again consider Putnam’s oft-discussed findings about diversity eroding societal trust and repressing social engagement and investment in public goods (similar to findings by others and a topic often brought up by Salter).
Putnam not only found that diversity decreased trust between groups but within groups as well. That latter finding is somewhat counter intuitive, since one could reasonably assume that increased diversity, and the consequent increased distrust between groups, would strengthen a tribal “us against them” mentality and therefore increase trust within groups. But the opposite occurred, at least with those examples Putnam studied.
How can we interpret the counter intuitive finding that diversity erodes trust and societal cohesion within groups as well as between groups? This depends on whether this “within group” problem applies to all groups, or only to Whites. Perhaps those more familiar with the nuances of Putnam’s work – which I read some time ago and have no interest in revisiting as Putnam is a disgusting excuse for an academic who hid his findings for years and only published it with an accompanying screed promoting social engineering to grease the wheels of White dispossession (*) and my hypothesis here will require more data in any case for a fair evaluation – know more of this.
My hypothesis is as follows.
If within group trust is eroded by diversity for all groups, then this phenomenon reflects a general human (or should I say “hominid”) trend to withdraw and “hunker down” when faced with diversity,
If the effect is restricted to Whites (which I believe will be the case if a careful quantitative study is done), then this is a strictly White mental phenomenon. And how does this happen? The hypothesis suggest the following.
One could speculate various mechanisms if this was the case, but consider – a la Ignatiev’s “Race Traitor” paradigm – that Whites are the only group in which large numbers of the group – including a majority of influential elites – act overtly against group interests. Thus, there is no racial solidarity among Whites, no one you can racially trust unless you really know them – hence, when faced with diversity, Whites will mistrust other Whites because – given the omega cuckiness of many Whites – one can never be sure whether a given White is “on our side” or “on their side.” In a homogeneous White community this isn’t so much of a problem (of course political disagreements – including whether or not to import diversity – can precipitate such mistrust, but even so, in a homogeneous community such conflicts would be muted). However, in the presence of diversity, Whites must tread carefully. Is your White coworker someone you can trust to share your disgust over multiculturalism, or will they “report you to HR” because of your “bigotry?”
On the other hand, non-Whites (including Jews) can reliably depend on their co-ethnics showing ethic/racial solidarity, and siding with them against “the other” (and particularly against Whites). For Whites, a given fellow White is just as likely to be a Universalist cuck as they are to be someone sharing your beliefs.
Thus, diversity erodes within group trust among Whites (and likely only among Whites) because Whites are ideologically split on this race-diversity issue, and many Whites are SJW “altruistic punishers, so that in diverse environments fellow Whites may pose a threat since they would identify with “the other side.”
Ignatiev would be proud.
*Salter rightly claimed in On Genetic Interests that for a majority being replaced, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does work, since the workable multiculturalism will make race replacement more agreeable to those being replaced, while the pain of a failed multiculturalism may wake the majority up to prevent their dispossession. Putnam is clearly on the side of those who want multiculturalism to succeed.